wicca is only 50 or 60 years old
personal experience, questioning ppl who turned their backs on god.
and the communion ceremony..
again personal experience..of which the only validity i can give is when they preach one thing and then find exception to it in their own lives..
and i personally believe in god first and use the bible to justify that belief, not the other way around.
yes..judged by him..not humans. for a human to claim 'you are not going to heaven' does not anticipate any future redemptions.
crusades,dark ages,molestations, etc..
baseless only from a scientific/provability aspect, not baseless from my own experiences..
and your comment about justification is correct..when it comes to religion, justification works for both sides..
see your comment about assumptions, as you are assuming i either do or do not have the personal experiences to justify my own opinion..
Invalid.
Personal anecdote is not evidence.
Re-enactment of the Last Supper.
If they are pagan for it, you must be claiming Christ was practicing pagan rituals as well.
Again- invalid.
Your personal experiences cannot speak for a Globe of 7.5 billion people.
The rest was irrelevant to the question.
Yet, protestants make this claim constantly. They claim that anyone not of THEIR belief is going to Hell.
Consider that one outrageously refuted.
This counts for the majority of all world Suffering?
Were the catholics solely responsible for that?
Or was Primitive Belief, superstition and an irrational belief in supernatural involved, no matter what label you stick on top of it?
As shown above- It's baseless on that ground as well.
In regards to your personal experiences- see above. They don't add up to squat when making bold claims about the Entire Globe.
Justification is exactly what you demonstrated at the expense of critical thinking.
there is evidence for the practice of that ritual from before christ came, as to how it came into the bible i can only speculate..(see my attitude on canonization)
that just emphasizes my point..
now its sounding like you are just trying to argue with no substance as you just contradicted yourself
didn't say it was responsible for ALL suffering or that they were solely responsible.
you didn't ask me to prove anything..you asked why, i answered..i did not say i talk for the entire globe.
and personal anecdote is evidence enough for me..
i am not seeking to convince you of anything..
i am only shareing what i know..you can either believe it or not..that is your choice.
and i am not making any claims for anyone else but myself.
you have summarily dissmissed everything i have said completley out of context using arguments that have nothing to do with anything.
the irony is you are using your own opinions to invalidate my opinions, which i have stated that mine are just opinions, you have not..you are acting like you know all there is to know..in which case i would ask you to prove it.
Show this evidence, please.
How so? You were pointing out the evil sins of the Catholics. I was just removing the plank.
Tell me how this emphasizes your point.
I did no such thing. Stay honest now.
You blamed Catholics for certain behavior. I pointed out the fallacy of that claim as the same behavior is observable in ALL denominations.
You now vaguely claim that emphasizes your point. By magic- I suppose, because no other reason is obvious. I might guess you don't know either considering you had not given the reason.
Aye, but you implied it well enough.
So I called you on it and now you are worming out of it.
I notice that you removed the excerpt in which I suggested that the root cause was superstition itself- and not the various forms of it.
I find that interesting.
No. I asked you for citations to support your claims.
You failed to provide them and now you are weaseling out of it by claiming that you had not intended to speak for the entire globe.
Too bad.
You should have thought of that before you made broad sweeping statements against a group of people- and then tried to sheepishly support that by saying, "Well it seems to ME that way..." Hogwash. You were asked for citations, you gave none, you made a cop out--- Consider your claims Refuted.
This statement doesn't make sense.
Not logically. Not the grammar, the syntax or any other part of it.
The statement you just made has no bearing on discussion or to where you made claims about a group of people that you failed to support with appropriate citations.
This is an age old tactic: "Prove Me Wrong."
If I say I have an invisible pink unicorn- Prove that I don't.
One cannot prove a negative.
This is just more weaseling by you: You made claims. You didn't express opinions. I expressed no opinions-- I called on you to support your claims. That is an attempt by you at obfuscation. You are trying to confuse the issue.
Let me quote you:
Does that look like an Opinion to you? Sure looks like an attempt at a statistic.
You stated it as fact.
You got called on it.
You failed to support and are now trying to claim it was just an opinion and I have to prove you wrong.
No, I really don't. You've admitted that you have NO IDEA what you were talking about, you were just excreting opinions out of your orifice.
Last edited:
MW and others need to have catholicisim as a true interpretation of Christianity, it's a psycological need. For it gives them a sence of justification for rejecting the Word of God in total.
Once one removes their false foundation of rejection then their house of cards falls down. So they protect their false foundation to the end because they do not want to face the fear that they have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
As for the many and varied churches of Protestantism.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and many protestant churches are not even the enemy of the catholic church many of them are engaged in a very close ecumenical relationship with the catholic church and more and more of them are getting into bed with the powers that be just a the catholic harlot did and still does.
The time of luther and the division of people between catholicism and protestantism was a opportunity of the Word of God. For to justify their rebellion against the catholic church the protestant movement had to show by the Bible the abominations of the catholic church.
While they did break away, most of these churches did not break away from all the false teachings of the catholic church. Most protestant churches acknowledge sunday as the Sabbath a false teaching from the catholic church. Most sill believe and acknowledge the catholic teaching of justifiable war another false teaching. So they are just as much the enemy of the truth as the catholic church is.
What the break did was cause the protestant churches to mass print the bible so their break loosened the Bible from the clutches of the catholic church and gave it directly into the hands of the people. This allowed people to read the Word of God for themselves. They could be moved directly by the Holy Spirit and lead individually to the Redeemer without having false teachers twisting scripture and delivering that twist as Biblical truth.
So even though most protestant churches tow the line and serve the evil elites just like the catholic/eastern orthodox churches do ( we should not fail to mention the eastern churches who are just as false as rome) Their formation allowed the release of the scriptures to the common people and that was a blessing to the people. A blessing to me.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Once one removes their false foundation of rejection then their house of cards falls down. So they protect their false foundation to the end because they do not want to face the fear that they have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
As for the many and varied churches of Protestantism.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and many protestant churches are not even the enemy of the catholic church many of them are engaged in a very close ecumenical relationship with the catholic church and more and more of them are getting into bed with the powers that be just a the catholic harlot did and still does.
The time of luther and the division of people between catholicism and protestantism was a opportunity of the Word of God. For to justify their rebellion against the catholic church the protestant movement had to show by the Bible the abominations of the catholic church.
While they did break away, most of these churches did not break away from all the false teachings of the catholic church. Most protestant churches acknowledge sunday as the Sabbath a false teaching from the catholic church. Most sill believe and acknowledge the catholic teaching of justifiable war another false teaching. So they are just as much the enemy of the truth as the catholic church is.
What the break did was cause the protestant churches to mass print the bible so their break loosened the Bible from the clutches of the catholic church and gave it directly into the hands of the people. This allowed people to read the Word of God for themselves. They could be moved directly by the Holy Spirit and lead individually to the Redeemer without having false teachers twisting scripture and delivering that twist as Biblical truth.
So even though most protestant churches tow the line and serve the evil elites just like the catholic/eastern orthodox churches do ( we should not fail to mention the eastern churches who are just as false as rome) Their formation allowed the release of the scriptures to the common people and that was a blessing to the people. A blessing to me.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Dude, didn't you claim that pjdude showed his allegiance to Satan for having an avatar depicting what might be a snake (But looks like a lizard to me- it's pretty small...)?
You are really not one to talk about psychology!
would please quit posting this bullshit. it an insult to all intelligent christian people who know the history of the faith something you clearly don't.
plenty of protestants do the same thing in regards to religion and their own institutions.
the reason MW isn't a practicing catholic anymore is because after participating in it she knew it was a sham. she's stated that quite clearly on this forum before.
not for the reason you and adstar are claiming. she believes ALL religion is a sham. and I like how you really didn't reply to what I actually said
any religion can be used as a cheap substitute for a relationship with god.
their is no god religion is merely a way of dealing with the unknown. you don't have a relationship of god you have created an entity to excuse your prejudices. Catholics are christians and you an adstar are nothing more than zealots seeking to push your own historically and theologically suspect beliefs on to christianity
and you still haven't adressed my base point that you and adstar are trying to redefine christianity to conform to your prejudices
what prejudices are you referring to?
I dunno. I haven't a clue to what your prejudices might be but I damn well know your not going to be one of the few people who conceives of a god that doesn't conform to your ideas of right and wrong
This is the basis of Christianity- Redefinition.
It's always been about that. Christ was a zealot that refined Judaism.
John redefined Christianity (Unintentionally).
As did Peter, later.
The Catholics redefined it again about 400 years later.
Then the protestants redefined it. Then the protestants split into a hundred different sects all quibbling with each other.
Then the Muslims pointed at them and laughed.
Then the Christians pointed at the Muslims and laughed for the Muslims all dividing into different sects and quibbling with each other.
Obviously, the real question is: Do you want your popcorn with salt and butter or without?
in other words, you're being prejudicial towards me.
yes I am I don't like people that put zealotry and sky fairies ahead of rational thought and years of history and theological discourse.
aren't you then being a zealot?
some of these users need to learn the difference between discussion and arguing..
in a discussion it does not matter who is right and who is wrong..
i can say that unicorns exist and another user can describe the different kinds of unicorns..that is a discussion..
it does not matter whether unicorns exist or not to have a discussion about unicorns..
if you want proof of god you will not find it, because you are looking in the wrong places,and asking the wrong questions..
if you are looking to argue that god does not exist,then the same criteria applies to you that you apply to others..there is no proof that god does not exist. so that argument ends up being your opinion vrs others opinions.
neverfly..
where is your stance on Catholicism?
are you for or against it?
if you are against it,why are you arguing for it?
or is your argueing on autopilot with no consideration of your stance.
in a discussion it does not matter who is right and who is wrong..
i can say that unicorns exist and another user can describe the different kinds of unicorns..that is a discussion..
it does not matter whether unicorns exist or not to have a discussion about unicorns..
if you want proof of god you will not find it, because you are looking in the wrong places,and asking the wrong questions..
if you are looking to argue that god does not exist,then the same criteria applies to you that you apply to others..there is no proof that god does not exist. so that argument ends up being your opinion vrs others opinions.
neverfly..
where is your stance on Catholicism?
are you for or against it?
if you are against it,why are you arguing for it?
or is your argueing on autopilot with no consideration of your stance.
Yeah, and you're one of them.
No, it's a crazy person justifying their denial.
True.
False.
God, as a supernatural creature is required to be totally non-falsifiable.
Your claim is that by enjoying the irrational and deluded part of the mind, one can find God.
Well, I can make an EXTREMELY long list of other imaginary creatures that can be found that way as well. And if anyone says those leprechauns and goblins and whatnot don't exist, I can just claim that they are not looking in the right place.
Irrelevant.
You assume that one must be either for or against.
I did not argue in favor of Catholicism. I argued against your garbage.