How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

[eduardo89]

I don't really define "Christian" the way you do. I define a Christian as an actual disciple of Jesus Christ. By definition, that person, the genuine disciple of Christ, is of the elect. So based on the way I'd define "Christian" I'd say that all Christians go to Heaven. Of course, I don't always know who those people are, and in some cases, I'll admit that I don't know if a given person is a Christian or not.

You define any person who has been baptized as a Christian. By that definition, I'd agree with you that not all Christians go to heaven.

No, that is not true. I do not define every single person who has been baptized to be a Christian, although they are all born again, as the Bible says. I consider those who follow Christ and Scripture to be Christians, even though none will be following the Christian faith perfectly.

I won't ever make a comment about Catholicism that I do not believe to be accurate. If I make a mistake, feel free to point it out.

I will, which means I'll be replying to you a lot

I'll reserve judgment on Sola's heart, as that's really none of my business, but I don't think he's lying on purpose.

Sola has proven himself over a very long period of posting to be the most intellectually dishonest debater when it comes to religion. He continually twists and lies about not just Catholicism, but Orthodoxy and SDA, as TER and jmdrake will attest to.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

I said that "churches" that call themselves Apostolic Catholic are not Catholic. They have nothing to do with the real Catholic Church while is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

So, what about the Apostolic Catholic church? Is that one Catholic?

How about non-practicing Catholics? Are they Catholic?

And, here's a real head scratcher for you... Is the Devil Catholic or Protestant?

 

[eduardo89]

So, what about the Apostolic Catholic church? Is that one Catholic?

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Look at the post you just quoted.

How about non-practicing Catholics? Are they Catholic?

No, obviously they are not. They do not follow the Catholic faith and the laws of the Catholic Church which include going to Mass every single Sunday and Holy day of obligation, to receive the Eucharist at least once per year, and to go to confession a least once per year.

What you're asking is like asking "is someone who calls themselves a member of the GOP but never goes to GOP meetings, never votes in GOP primaries, never pays their membership dues, and doesn't vote for GOP candidates a member of the the Republican Party?"

And, here's a real head scratcher for you... Is the Devil Catholic or Protestant?

Neither, what an absurd question. The Devil does not worship God. Catholics and Protestants do.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

Read the encounter between St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Act 8. The Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says.

You also should read 2 Peter 1:20, which says that "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." The Bible here is itself saying in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is interesting to note that before this verse comes a section on the Apostolic witness and is then followed by a section on false teachers. St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

The idea of the Scripture's Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church. I also suggest you read the Church Fathers, specically:

I disagree with that interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20. Here's how CLV (Concordant Literal Version) interprets it:

CLV
2Pt 1:20 knowing this first, that not prophecy of scripture at every-all is becoming~ its own explanation.

In other words, that any single prophecy cannot be taken on it's own, but is associated with the whole of prophecy, and therefore cannot be interpreted by itself without the whole.

edit: And I see could "context" also being included.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The word is he’s one of the “elect”, so he acquires knowledge in a non-sensory way the “non-elect” can’t.

If this were true, he wouldn't need the Bible at all; God would just reveal Himself and His message directly to SF's brain. SF's dilemma is that he can't reconcile his rejection of sense perception with his reliance on the Bible. And he has the nerve to call others illogical.

 

[Danan]

If this were true, he wouldn't need the Bible at all; God would just reveal Himself and His message directly to SF's brain. SF's dilemma is that he can't reconcile his rejection of sense perception with his reliance on the Bible. And he has the nerve to call others illogical.

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Look at the post you just quoted.

Sorry, I got that backwards... I was intending to ask about the Catholic Apostolic Church.

No, obviously they are not. They do not follow the Catholic faith and the laws of the Catholic Church which include going to Mass every single Sunday and Holy day of obligation, to receive the Eucharist at least once per year, and to go to confession a least once per year.

What you're asking is like asking "is someone who calls themselves a member of the GOP but never goes to GOP meetings, never votes in GOP primaries, never pays their membership dues, and doesn't vote for GOP candidates a member of the the Republican Party?"

I see. So, in your estimation, if a person believes a certain way, but seldom, or never, acts accordingly, then they can hardly claim to have that belief? For instance, if a member of the GOP party never votes, at all, then they are not a member of the GOP party?

But, isn't that a logical contradiction? How can they be a member of the GOP and not a member of the GOP? Now, I fully realize that GOP members either tend to be, or tend to do a really good job of pretending to be, Young Earth Creationists(ie insane), these days(ie since the days of Reagan)... But, does that necessarily mean they are?

Neither, what an absurd question. The Devil does not worship God. Catholics and Protestants do.

Really? Well, both Catholics and Protestants claim that he was once an angel of God... Does that not mean that the Devil also believes in God?

 

[Frank Lee Seaux]

No, that is not true. I do not define every single person who has been baptized to be a Christian, although they are all born again, as the Bible says. I consider those who follow Christ and Scripture to be Christians, even though none will be following the Christian faith perfectly.

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Do you bathe in the blood of all the children who disobey their parents? Do you stone every woman who is raped and does not yell loud enough to be heard? Do you kill all non-believers of your specific faith? Do you save the girls who are virgins and take them for your bride, if you find them attractive? I'd just about guarantee that there is a whole lot of scripture you would find repulsive, if you took a moment to actually consider it, whether it was still held as true and necessary today, or something which was dismissed by the blood of Christ.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Every Christian believes in Allah. Allah just means God in Arabic. Christians who speak Arabic pray to Allah.

No. This is not just a matter of different languages. YOUR Pope, "your little god on earth", who you say speaks infallibly, just said this:

Further, on March 20, 2013, Pope Francis addressed religious leaders across the world. Among other matters, Francis stated,

"…It is a cause for particular joy to meet today with you, delegates of the Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox churches and ecclesial communities of the West…. Together with you I cannot forget how much that Council has meant for the road of ecumenism…. For my part, I wish to assure you…of my determination to continue on the path of ecumenical dialogue. I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, to bring my cordial greeting and the assurance of my remembrance in the Lord Jesus to the churches and Christian communities here represented…. I then greet and cordially thank you all, dear friends belonging to other religious traditions; first of all the Muslims, who worship the one God, living and merciful, and call upon Him in prayer, and all of you. I really appreciate your presence: in it I see a tangible sign of the will to grow in mutual esteem and cooperation for the common good of humanity.[15]

- See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php#sthash.F3oi9vZU.dpuf

That is not just a matter of language. He said that Muslims worship the one God and call upon him in prayer.

That is false. That is evil. That is not Christianity, and Rome does not have the gospel.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Well.... I'm not Catholic anymore. lol

 

[eduardo89]

No. This is not just a matter of different languages.

You get dumber as the days go by.

What is the Arabic word for god? What word do Arabic-speaking Christians use for god? When an Arabic-speaking Christian prays, what word does he use for God?

 

[VIDEODROME]

Next we'll hear Arab speakers can't be Christians.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Next we'll hear Arab speakers can't be Christians.

For better or worse, I don't think this is Sola_Fide's point.

I don't think Sola is saying that an Arab Christian who prays to "Allah" by which he means the Christian God, but in a different language, is not saved.

What Sola is saying is that the Muslim version of God ("Allah") is fundamentally different than the true God, even if he is described as "Allah" by Arabic Christians. In other words, Sola_Fide is saying that an Arab Christian who speaks Arabic and prays to Allah is nonetheless not praying to the same God that Muslims pray to.

Let me put it this way: Unitarians refer to their God as "God." I refer to the true God as "God." We don't use different words to describe them. Nonetheless, Unitarians do not worship the same God as I do.

Am I getting your point, Sola_Fide?

 

[eduardo89]

What Sola is saying is that the Muslim version of God ("Allah") is fundamentally different than the true God, even if he is described as "Allah" by Arabic Christians.

What does that have to do with what I was saying, though? Absolutely nothing.

 

[VIDEODROME]

lol

Seriously, some of these "I'm more Christian than you are" things sound like arguments over semantics.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh boy, this was such a crazy post, off the wall. Thoughts came to me, I typed them, and I had a hard time keeping logical track of them. I guess I kind of tried to address some of the philosophical issues, but its kind of coherent. Take it for what it is, and if you can get anything out of it, great.

****
Admittedly, the above does bring about some philosophical questions. At what point is something changed so much that its a different thing entirely? I think we'd all agree that Baptists and Presbyterians worship the same God, even though as Baptists Sola and I would disagree with the Presbyterians (Not to mention each other) on certain religious issues. At the same point, Sola_Fide and I disagree on exactly in what way God loves the nonelect (Sola would deny that God loves these people in any sense, I like most Calvinists would claim that God does love them in some sense, albeit a different sense than the elect, much like James White claims.) Do James White and I believe in a different God than Sola_Fide does? Heck, do I believe in a different God than James White does, since James White is a supralapsarian and I'm an infralapsarian? Do free-will baptists believe in a different God than we do? Episcopalians? Catholics? Jews* (Remember they do believe the OT, or at least claim to.)? Where exactly is the line here? The "FreedomFanatic" of last year was different than I am now, but its still "Me."

The Islamic God seems to pretty clearly differentiate from the God of the Bible to a sufficient extent that he clearly isn't the same, but I wouldn't necessarily interpret a claim that they are the same God as necessarily meaning that both religions lead to salvation.

 

[VIDEODROME]

I thought Muslims respected the Old Testament as much as the Jews. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

[eduardo89]

Oh boy, this was such a crazy post, off the wall. Thoughts came to me, I typed them, and I had a hard time keeping logical track of them. I guess I kind of tried to address some of the philosophical issues, but its kind of coherent. Take it for what it is, and if you can get anything out of it, great.

****
Admittedly, the above does bring about some philosophical questions. At what point is something changed so much that its a different thing entirely? I think we'd all agree that Baptists and Presbyterians worship the same God, even though as Baptists Sola and I would disagree with the Presbyterians (Not to mention each other) on certain religious issues. At the same point, Sola_Fide and I disagree on exactly in what way God loves the nonelect (Sola would deny that God loves these people in any sense, I like most Calvinists would claim that God does love them in some sense, albeit a different sense than the elect, much like James White claims.) Do James White and I believe in a different God than Sola_Fide does? Heck, do I believe in a different God than James White does, since James White is a supralapsarian and I'm an infralapsarian? Do free-will baptists believe in a different God than we do? Episcopalians? Catholics? Jews* (Remember they do believe the OT, or at least claim to.)? Where exactly is the line here? The "FreedomFanatic" of last year was different than I am now, but its still "Me."

The Islamic God seems to pretty clearly differentiate from the God of the Bible to a sufficient extent that he clearly isn't the same, but I wouldn't necessarily interpret a claim that they are the same God as necessarily meaning that both religions lead to salvation.

What does any of that have to do with Arabic-speaking Christians calling God by the word Allah, which is the Arabic word for god, which was used for over 500 years by Arab Christians before Islam even existed?

 

[Christian Liberty]

What does that have to do with what I was saying, though? Absolutely nothing.

The Catholic catechism does seem to be saying that Allah (The Muslim God, not the Arabic word for the God of the Bible) is the same God as the God of the Bible. That said, as I said, that doesn't necessarily mean that the RCC is teaching that Muslims can be saved while still being Muslims (although they kind of do teach this with their whole "Invincible Ignorance" doctrine). I should also mention that I've exchanged PMs with a Latin Mass Catholic on another forum that I'm almost certain would be "orthodox" and he told me that he didn't agree with the catechism on that point, so to my understanding, Catholics don't HAVE to agree with it like they do actual dogmas.

I sort of have an issue with saying that any non-Trinitarian understanding of God is the same God in any sense as the God of the Bible, but then, I just tried to touch on some of the convolted philosophy issues there. Just how much do you have to change something before its not the same? I'd prefer to just stick to a debate regarding who is or is not saved (And I think any Christian can agree that Muslims are not) rather than arguing abstract, philosophical concepts like whether the God is in some sense that same or not.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What does any of that have to do with Arabic-speaking Christians calling God by the word Allah, which is the Arabic word for god, which was used for over 500 years by Arab Christians before Islam even existed?

Nothing at all.