>> ^alcom:

Is is just me, or were the pews extremely quiet during this sermon?


In my Catholic experiences, the congregation is expected to keep totally silent except for during specific rituals.

This doesn't look like a typical Catholic church, though: the priest is wearing short sleeves, the walls are sheetrocked, fluorescent lighting, a frickin projector. It's awfully modern looking.

>> ^radx:

"Why don't more people know about this?"
Well, why didn't more people know about the existence of the Mafia previous to Joe Valachi's testimony before Senate? The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking? Police brutality? Climate change? Peak oil? Torture camps? Civilian casualties of drone strikes?
It was/is not part of the major consensus narrative.
Similarly, churches are entities of morality, protectors of the weak. At least that's what the narrative still says. So when people hear about these atrocious acts of child abuse, they don't buy it. It doesn't fit their world view, and overcoming the inevitable cognitive dissonance would require them to a) re-examine their own beliefs/perceptions and b) act upon it. That's not an easy thing to do.
Once they cross that threshold, "I don't buy it" turns into "I've known all along". Happens all the time.

Paedophilia in the Catholic church is part of the "consensus narrative"; so much so that it's the first thing I think of when I think of the Catholic Church.

>> ^gwiz665:

I find the hypocrisy of Christians acting non-christian hilarious. Atheists on average are just nicer people.

Idk about that. What bothers me is that he can make this little hate speech to an army of drones, all of them with the sincere belief that when they abuse and torment their children for the way they are because some divine being told them to. Poor Isaac.


Its like the scandal within the Catholic church. Clearly paedophiles exist outside of religion or this specific faith, what is particularly frightening is the degree to which the organisation covered it up and protected their own. Perhaps you could argue the priests were insane, sexually repressed, in need of help, but the organisation that protects them with no thought given to the victims? Thats the evil.

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

>> ^messenger:
First, you've made the assertion many times here that if we will only just invite Jesus into our lives, he will reveal himself to us, etc. I've told you somewhere here that my own family did just that. We were all faithful Catholics. My parents have been practising for over 70 years. My sisters were Catholic for varying lengths of time from 15-26 years. I was Catholic until I was 14. We all fervently believed, but at no point was anything revealed to any of us. Nobody in my family has ever directly experienced anything like what you claim will happen in 5 minutes.

That isn't really surprising. There are two kinds of Christian out there, those who have a religion and those who have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Catholics primarily fall under this first category of Christian. The Catholic religion, if you've done your research, is essentially Christianity blended together with paganism. There is no pope in the bible, no nuns, no monks, no sacraments, no confession, no mary worship, no bowing to statues, no praying to saints, etc. These is very little resemblence between what catholics practice and the Christian faith. That is why so many catholics do not know Christ. My mother, who attended the catholic church when she was a child, told me she barely ever heard about Jesus while she was there.

A Christian who has a religion is someone who simply has a head knowledge about Jesus. They were most likely brought up in the church, and have inherited their parents religion. They don't know why they believe what they believe, it is just simply what they were indoctrinated with. They believe Christianity is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. These people do not know God and are not born again.

A Christian who has a relationship with Jesus Christ is born again and supernaturally transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. They have intimate knowledge of God because they have the Holy Spirit living within them and experience the presence of God on a daily basis. These are those who have given their entire lives and personalities over to God, as Lord and not just Savior.

While by a miracle some catholics are actually born again, most are not. You do not know the Lord for the reason that you had a religion and not a relationship. I don't blame you for running away screaming from the catholic religion. I empathize with anyone who escapes that madness. What I pray is that you consider Christ without the burden of that religion, and look at what He actually taught about how to know Him.
>> ^messenger:
Second, most times that you make the assertion that if you look for Jesus wholeheartedly that you'll find him, I remind you that the same can be said for every religion on Earth. If I gave myself to Islam, I would become Muslim and believe. If I gave myself to Judaism, I would become Jewish and believe. You gave yourself to Jesus, so you believe in him, not Mohammed. If your test for your claim of Jesus's divinity is that if we seek him we'll find him, then by that exact same test, we could also prove that Islam and Judaism are also true. Can you give me something other than statistics on the predominance of Christianity in the world to support the claim that Jesus is the true god and the other religions are false?


If you invite Jesus into your life as Lord and Savior, you will receive the Holy Spirit, whom will supernaturally transform your being and give you an undeniable revelation of Gods existence. You will experience true joy, a lasting peace, and have intimate knowledge of the love of God. I am not saying this as some sort of metaphor..that is what will literally happen to you. You will know when you encounter the living God, versus some feel-good experience with false religion.

@ SpaceGirlSpiff, great sift btw.

@ Shinyblurry
Disclaimer: your quotes of my post say 'A10anis said'. Wouldn't be good for A10anis to get flak for any of my comments/opinions.
I didn't properly frame-quote you again this time because i couldn't be bothered trying to separate your quotes from mine, but your response was much more respectable imo

Regardless of what your point meant to be, what your hypothetical story states is to act on another persons unverified word, that is not rated as trust worthy by past events. People aren't likely to do this on any other subject, because their reasoning will interject and a request for evidence will be made.
E.g. kill that women because she's a witch.
In this case you're likely (i hope) to either want proof beyond reasonable doubt prior to acting, or will disregard the request. For me, same goes for other extreme cases like the idea of God existing or any God being the correct one.

I didn't say pride had no affect. Your statement was that pride was the 'only' thing stopping A10anis, i disagreed and outlined a few other things stopping me personally. For the record, my bio states "Proud to be an atheist". There's pride alright, a fair bit of it, but it doesn't start, dominate nor end the subject for me.

Quote "Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?"
1. Firstly, although humans are still learning about many subjects and haven't yet fully explained everything, we've done a remarkably good job so far over the past 400 years, and are at a stage where we don't need Gods in order to explain things and are content with mysteries over magic while we figure things out.
2. Because there's no evidence, I leave it to those who make the incredible claim to prove it. 'Spaghetti monster' argument, onus is on the claimer for proof.
3. I also look at the size of the universe vs the size of the claimed favorite species and see it as an illogical waste of effort. It's like building the entire earth for a few ants that will exist for a few minutes.
4. But my favorite is the psychology of it. Leaving this out because I would write a novel and loose my weekend in the process.

Re the sun comment, I've read a few religious books as i was walking away from the whole concept, some cover to cover, others skimmed through them, didn't like the ideas of how horrible stories were passed off as 'good' because of a belief in God.
But now days I do take most statements like my sun one from net searches, and yes, you're right, the book doesn't say it directly. But it not far off seems to imply it a few times, at least enough for the head of the Catholic church to have gotten behind the idea for a decent period of time.

Original sources? No sorry (had a bit of a search but lost interest), I'll give you this link instead, review it if you care. Reason being, if my statement turned out to be wrong, I'd accept it quick smart as i don't actually care whether Jesus was like others before him or not, and if i was right, again wouldn't care but also i doubt it would have much impact (a general statement re believers). I made the comment because from what i have read previously it seemed plausible.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

Investigated Christ? Bits and pieces, but not a complete investigation by any means. The guy either died a long time ago or never existed. So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage and lacking a devoted level of interest to go balls out on the research. I settle for the notion that we're able to come up with plausible concepts and explanations without involving a God.

Quote: "I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him."
I agree, if by distorted you mean 'different' to your lens.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^RadHazG:
Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.

I don't like this whole "The Catholic Church" distinction. To me it's like when people blame America when they're really talking about just the government. The Catholic Church is a misnomer in my opinion that doesn't represent the majority of Catholics let alone it's churches and their individual leaderships.


Truth, however that is the difference between "The Catholic Church" and "Catholics". The Church as a whole i.e. the majority of its upper power structure and the ones responsible for speaking for it have absolutely done this. I wouldn't make expect every or even most Catholics to necessarily follow the same line as the Church itself (see: women's contraception).

>> ^RadHazG:

Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.


I don't like this whole "The Catholic Church" distinction. To me it's like when people blame America when they're really talking about just the government. The Catholic Church is a misnomer in my opinion that doesn't represent the majority of Catholics let alone it's churches and their individual leaderships.

Yes but Santorum equating being gay to bestiality isn't a similar treatment? Spare us your ignorant ranting you two, the Catholic church has done nearly to the same thing to those it opposes over the years. Have some of your own medicine for a change.

There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.

That said, the Catholic Church supported commiecare from the get-go, so they're sowing what they reaped. When you strike a deal with the devil, you lose.

@bobknight33 Correct once again, my friend. Obama worships only Obama.

Just pointing out...rape in the military is a problem and a lot of it is the fact that women are blackballed and it goes unreported or the superiors do nothing. I mean what the fuck? Does the army think they're the catholic church or something!?

Your video, Stephen Fry dismantles the Roman Catholic Church, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Quboid:


The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor right.


Brilliant.

>> ^shinyblurry:
The Christian religion has brought freedom and liberty where ever it has gone...<snip> The catholic church used Christianity to control people, this is true, but they clearly weren't following anything Jesus taught.


What? So there is some secret sect of Christianity that is doing it right were others are wrong.. I see now. Thank goodness we have your interpretation to sort us out.

All the freedoms who enjoys? Who is free? You keep saying that everybody is free but we're far from it. The only other countries that we're more free than...are countries that are just slightly more religious than the US. That's right...the more religion, the less freedoms. Inverse relationship between religion and freedom. On the individual, on the community, in a country. Religion is ALWAYS a form of social control, it has never been used to "free" anybody.

You don't think you're free in America? Let me guess..you take issue with Americas drug laws, right? And you're quite incorrect about the inverse relationship between freedom and religion. The least free countries today are atheistic states and totalitarian regimes. The freest countries in the world all have a rich Christian heritage, though not all of them necessarily honor that heritage. You're also talking about religion as if they're all the same, which they clearly aren't. The Christian religion has brought freedom and liberty where ever it has gone, whereas religions like Islam are oppressive and grind their people into the dirt. The catholic church used Christianity to control people, this is true, but they clearly weren't following anything Jesus taught. There is nothing oppressive about Christianity..it teaches us to regard everyone as equal, to love our neighbors as ourselves, to hate no one, and to minister to the poor and helpless. If everyone followed that we would have an ideal world.

>> ^rottenseed

The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

The bible is the inspired word of God, and your read of history leaves much to be desired. First, many of the books in the NT were considered canon around 140 AD, just as the early church was getting its start, and there was no conspiracy in selecting them. The only issue in the selection process was to weed out the gnostic writings and the uninspired works from the old testament era. Second, the RCC was not an institution until much later. By the time the bible was canonized in 367, the whole church was in agreement about what should be in it. There is also no evidence of editing. We have the early manuscripts and can check this.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

That's as biased a read of american history as I have ever heard. To say that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country is patently absurd. If you want evidence, feel free to read my other post, or do some *unbiased* research. I suppose you have never seen the Mayflower Compact?

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/compact.htm

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

It's impossible for you to understand the bible without the Holy Spirit. It might as well have been written in swahili for the good that it did you reading it. The accuracy of the bible is not just a historical matter but also in how it describes the human condition. That's why you have those quotes you have to admit are undeniably true, because the bible tells us the reality of the human heart. Yes, of course the founders read it (many of them went to seminary). There were many books in those days, and many philosophies, but they specifically chose the bible, and books based on the bible, as references to draft our nations founding documents, which itself is well documented. Most of them believed the bible was the inspired word of God, which was the reason they used it, not because it was a "popular book of short stories".

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

Apparently you don't know but there was a defacto state religion; almost every state had its own church, and every state constitution mentioned God. Again, they held church every sunday in the house of representitives. Clearly the founders were not interested in removing religion from government, they were only concerned about the balance of power. The secular dream you think the founders had never existed; they loved God and deliberately included Him in public affairs. After they wrote the constitution, Washington declared a day of thanksgiving and praise to God

"to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"

"http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/"

>> ^Hive13