Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[Claire Evans]

We are arguing about devil worship in the RCC, not what the average Catholic does.

This is your own fabrication. Have you SEEN someone in the RC Church worshipping Satan? Or do you just listen to rumours?

Having you seen priests molesting children? Yet we know it is a fact.

Is it possible that Satan is able to persuade people that good is bad? Or does Satan not possess that level of intelligence?

In a very subtle way. Like embracing symbols we have no clue is evil. Like worshiping Mary when it is actually ISIS worship. Yes, he has that intelligence to deceive like that.

[Claire Evans]

So, if one seeks him but cannot find, it must be the fault of the seeker, right? You have to assume this (though you have no way of knowing this to be true).

This is circular logic.

If you once believed in Jesus and did not find, did you not ask yourself if you were maybe putting up a barrier that didn't allow God in? Automatically believing you are not in the wrong is a barrier in my opinion.

Of course guilt was one of the first emotions I experienced. Then fear.

But me putting up a barrier? Nope. Didn’t happen.

Perpetual fear and guilt are the barriers you speak of.

You are either ignoring (repeatedly) what I am telling you or you are not paying attention.

There was a time when I was a believer with no doubts. Full stop. At that time, there were no barriers, no guilt, no second thoughts. Nada. Zip.

Then why did you feel guilt and fear when you left the church? Those things must have existed, at least subconsciously, for you to feel that. Why not just feel relieved and vindicated? You must have had doubts while you were a believer else you would have never left the Christian church. You would never had questioned your faith and be swayed by research.

Many people would do anything not to believe in Jesus so they would just say it is a hoax or it was done by a magician.

I’ve already said that this would not have happened in my case. God should know that.

And God knows that to truly know Him is to believe without seeing.

And yet, he used to be active all the time. I sought, but did not find. I guess in order for your faith to be “sound� it MUST be my fault. How convenient.

Yes, you sought by asking for scientific proof. That is not the way it works. You want evidence without any faith involved.

This came AFTER I began to lose my faith.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

But this is pure guesswork on your part. You have no reason (other than a preconceived answer) to suppose this.

Once again, you MUST discount what I am telling you. You believe me when my words suit you, but when they don’t, suddenly my honesty is suspect.

There is only one person in this conversation with a bias for a preconceived idea.

You.

If you didn't want scientific proof, then why was just not believing in the Holy Spirit not good enough for you then? You wanted, from what I gather, proof that is tangible.

Truly, you don't need these things to believe. Why must you behave like a doubting Thomas?

I am a product of my education, background and biology. As a Catholic, I began to lose faith. Just about any sign would have kept me locked in. None ever came.

I'm not surprised you lost faith as a Catholic. The Catholic denomination is based on devil worship starting with the Vatican.

Lol! Devil worship? Really? So much for “Judge not lest ye be judged�, I guess.

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic

You do recognize that the RCC is made up of people, who claim to be Roman Catholic, lol. Right?

The RCC, as in the Vatican, are made up of Satan worshipers that go out to deceive innocent Catholics. When I say the US is invading Syria, I don't mean all Americas are invading Syria.

They are obviously not Satanic. Yet rituals have Satanism in it. That is due to the Vatican.

You are categorically wrong, lol. Laughably so.

Ask yourself this question: Does it make sense for the Catholic faith to RAIL AGAINST Satan, vices, sin and selfishness in almost every mass, if it was surreptitiously supporting the devil and his ilk?

Of course. Satan comes in the name of love. Do you think he is going to come in the name of hate? He wants to draw people in and deceive not drive them away.

Right. Drawing them in by railing against vices. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Please, explain this further. How does teaching kids about the love of Jesus, that sin is bad, and that god is love DRAW ONE INTO a life of Satan worship?

First of all, how can the RCC preach about Satanism and expect to have a Christian following? What they can do is preach what Christianity is all about but insert their little Satanic beliefs in it. Like Mary worship, etc. Also, the RCC has succeeded in brainwashing Catholics to such an extent, they won't hear anything bad about it. The Pope can do no wrong to most Catholics. Therefore the Pope can preach things and people will believe because they think he is an ambassador for Christ.

Here is one quote:
"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

There is a Satanic agenda to promote atheism. Is not Jesus the divine Son of God?


“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

I’d love to hear this rationale. Please, do illuminate me how Catholicism is equivalent to devil worship. Superstitious nonsense? Yes, I would agree. Homophobic? Yep, I’m on board.

Devil worship? Please do explain.

I'll give you an example:

Apologies, Claire, but this is laughable, and not even worthy of discussion. Do you have anything better than this to support such a wild claim?

Why not? You haven't exactly discussed what is laughable about it.

No, I don’t have to. Riku did a fine job in Post 1085.

Like I said, laughable. You have anything else?

I debunked Riku. So please address the video again. Now let's say, hypothetically, that is St Peter's cross. Why are people praying to him and not Jesus?

And there is the bent cross. It is a blasphemous depiction of Jesus' crucifixion. In fact, it was considered so blasphemous that is was banned by the Church in 1921. Pope Francis brought it back.



http://novusordowatch.org/2013/04/franc ... ent-cross/

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 ... atican.htm

The Catholic religion often calls herself the "Mother Church." She's NOT the mother of Christ's church! By calling herself "mother" she is telling on herself. Is this the abomination spoken of in the Scriptures? . . .

THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

(Revelation 17:5)!

If there was a benevolent god, then I would have thought he might have made a little effort (as he has done in The Book) to keep me “saved�.

Self entitled again.

Maybe. But the fact remains. The logic (you employ to justify his absence) is inconsistent with the idea of a benevolent being. And it is inconsistent with the god character portrayed in the OT.

Thanks for the admission. Your sense of self entitlement is the barrier you set up between you and God.

You are wrong. I am here discussing this in good faith, and being open about my past. It is a shame that you have such a preconceived conclusion about what MUST be, that you cannot accept what I am telling you is the truth.

It is based on what you said. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not demand signs or miracles from God proving His existence?

For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I never demanded anything! I observed after the fact that a miracle/message/sign etc (as a believer) would have easily helped defeat the doubts when they arose.

I can’t make this any more clear. do you understand now?

Therefore you are putting the blame on God because he didn't provide you with signs. You think God should have made concessions for you.

And yes, God, as an benevolent deity as portrayed in the NT is inconsistent with Yahweh because they are different beings.

Please elaborate.

Jesus said that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Yahweh was the god of war. Jesus didn't allow the stoning of the prostitute when it was Yahweh's law to stone adulterers. Why?

Well, I agree that the OT is not divinely inspired, nor accurate. Now, if everyone would just admit that the OT is equally not divinely inspired … : )

I think the prophecies of Jesus are. The OT is deceptive but I think there is some truth about God in it.

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status

See what you did there? You ignored what I said in favor (once again) of your bias. I never said she was elevated to god status.

Then there is a lot you don't know about Catholicism. Why are their Catholics who pray to her?

Catholicism is based on pagan worship.

Lol, biased much?

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Fact: As of 2010, there are nearly 1.1 billion Catholics, up from an estimated 291 million in 1910. Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population. Feb 19, 2013

From “The World's Catholic Population (Infographic) - Live Science�

By definition, you are wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

Again, you are ignoring what the definition says. I am sensing a common theme. You ignoring what you don’t like in favor of a pre-existing belief.

The definition says what a Catholic is, the definition says what paganism is. Catholicism is not paganism.

You are wrong.

But of course it is going to hide itself and not say outwardly it is based on paganism. It was what they belief that is a different story. Mary is Isis/Semiramis to them.

Tell me, why has the church adopted so many pagan practices like Easter eggs and Christmas trees?

All of Christianity has some basis, in earlier religions. Virgin births, son of god, etc.

Examples of these can be found in mankind’s religions prior to the advent of Christianity. If you wish to denounce this practice as proof of paganism, then you can denounce the practice of worshipping Christ himself as well (by your standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

That should be another thread altogether because those Zeitgeist claims have been debunked a long time ago.

That is not biblical.

Says you. They take the bible just as serious as you do.

No True Scotsman Fallacy comes to mind now.

Then where on earth did they get the idea that Mary is the Mother of God?? It is absolutely nowhere in the Bible.

Because they believe in the Trinity. That Jesus is also god, so Mary is the mother of Jesus/god.

Silly concept I know. But it is what they (and I at one time) believe. But certainly not satanic, and certainly not devil worshipping, lol.

Pagan trinity in Egypt is Isis, Horus and Osiris. It is made of three separate entities. Isis preceded Horus, her son and a god, obviously, and Mary being covertly Isis in Catholicism, she is also considered greater than God.

No she is not. You are making stuff up again. Please stop doing that.

No, I'm not. Isis is a moon goddess.

http://www.goddessgift.com/goddess-myth ... s_isis.htm

Let us look at a picture of Mary now:



So we see she is standing on a crescent moon. In fact, there are amulets associating Mary with the moon:

I came to this conclusion because the subconscious mind can be in conflict with with the conscious mind. Outwardly, you may have believed you may have been seeking Jesus, but subconsciously many not have because of your sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me be very clear. When I was a Catholic, I did not have a sense of entitlement. You can choose to believe me or not. I know it suits your pre-conceived conclusion to believe this to be true, but it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, you did. You thought that should should have had miraculous signs to keep you in the faith. You thought that before you lost your faith, obviously. That's self entitlement.

The idea of why wasn’t I helped came AFTER I lost my faith.

Believe it or not, it is up to you.

And it is because of self entitlement that you thought that if you could not get what you wanted from God, then you will say, "Stuff it."

No, you didn't get a sense of self entitlement after you left the faith. It is because of your self entitlement that you got disillusioned while in the faith.

I love it. The arrogance of such a position. Sorry to be so blunt, but what else would you call someone who claims to know you better than you?

Seriously, you are telling me how I lost my faith?

Wow. Can you tell me more about myself? I am finding this laughably enlightening.

I am only coming to this conclusion based on what you are telling me. You can take it or leave it.

Great, show me where I thought (as a believer) that I was entitled to such a thing?

When you can’t, I expect a retraction.

You thought God should have given you a sign so you could get rid of your doubts. That's self-entitlement. Why should you believe God should do that for you but many Christians don't expect that from Him. What makes you special?

So, you can (in good faith) believe me when I tell you there was no sense of entitlement. There was only faith (in god, Jesus and my parents), an inquisitive mind and eventually higher education.

Can you really tell me that there weren't any other factors that make your faith decline other than not getting the miracles you wanted.

Wow. Are you even reading my posts? I did not seek any miracles while I was a believer.

Then why did you write this:

You assume miracles would do the trick.

It would have for me, without a doubt.

Because a miracle when my faith waned would have saved me, and certainly one when I was a believer (without doubts) would have prevented me from letting those doubts win out.

I would have thought this explanation obvious. Apologies if it wasn’t.

There for go. You thought that God should have made concessions for you so that you wouldn't leave the faith.

I thought this AFTERWARDS. Big difference.

Please, follow along.

If you thought this afterwards when you became an atheist, then obviously you could not have thought God should have made concessions because you obviously don't believe He exists.

So instead of thinking that doubting is part of the Christian journey and is normal, you think that if God existed, He should just make a short-cut for you.

That is trying to force His hand. Being doubtful is part of the refining of the faith. The disciples had doubts even when they saw Jesus doing miracles!

I wouldn’t have. If the disciples were worthy with doubts, why was I not worthy without doubts?

You wouldn't have? Jesus was not fully understood until the Holy Spirit filled people when He was gone. This is the thing. You think are you special. You think you'd have greater faith than the disciples. Often people who grow up to be indoctrinated won't have doubts. It is knowing God but not having doubts is what we ultimately should achieve.

I repeat: There was no sense of entitlement, nor desire to seek a miracle for my faith to be restored. I read I learned and I observed. My faith and beliefs succumbed to reason, logic, science and compassion.

After my faith was lost, it was only then that I questioned why it happened, and why wasn’t I helped.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

A lot of things wrong here. I dismissed the idea of a personal god after much reflection, education and logical thought. It most certainly was not a simple hand-waving dismissal. There was nothing easy about it.


And sometimes what seems wrong or illogical is indeed wrong and/or illogical.

So you assumed that logic somehow negates the supernatural? They are separate things. If the disciples had only logic to depend on, they would not have been followers of Jesus.

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate.

It does when you deny a measure of happiness for others for that which you want for yourself.

Sometimes what makes a person happy doesn't mean it is necessarily good for them.

It is the condemnation of gays that is the problem.

Call it what you want, but hating the sin and not the sinner still makes one less compassionate.

What? God hates the sin we do but loves us as sinners. Does that make Him less compassionate? You must understand that God doesn't tolerate evil.

So, can you consider the possibility that your assumption is wrong?

No. Do you consider you may be wrong?

Of course. That is why I read and learn more about my faith and all religions. I find it very unwise to think I can’t be wrong. You shouldn’t either.

Okay, so Jesus may be the Son of God to you?

I acknowledge I may be wrong about there not being a god, but until I see reasonable evidence showing otherwise I will behave and act as if there is no god, so therefore, he cannot be the son of god. Much like you do not believe in the Hindu god.

Okay. But I believe Hindu gods to have some truth in their existence.

Lol, but not the RCC. You are wildly inconsistent.

The RCC preaches some truth in that they believe Jesus is the Son of God, resurrected, etc, but inserts their little lies in it as well. Half truths are very effective.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me?

No, he wouldn’t, because he knows all and knows that I was a believer, without doubts at one time. Despite the fact the CE doesn’t believe me, lol.

Or maybe you were indoctrinated.

Why didn't you trust me enough in those in those days you thought I wasn't?

He already knows this answer too. Because the things I was being told were patently not true. That science contradicts what is purported to be true in the bible. And many more reasons. It is quite reasonable and even to be expected what (especially for an omnipotent god) would have happened to me – and many others.

So contradictions in the Bible thought you automatically assume the Holy Spirit doesn't exist? It is not what people tell you that counts but what you learn from the Holy Spirit Himself. God is not omnipotent else that would mean Satan has no power. So Satan being omnipotent can easily lead to corruption in the Bible. That, however, does not negate the existence of God.

If you had persisted, you would have found the answers you sought."

I have no way of knowing that. No one does. Plus, how was I to know I wasn’t being deceived?

Yes you would. Why do you think Christians claim to have received answers after not knowing it because of initial silence? A deceptive answer would not be for one's own spiritual good. It would lead one away from Christ.

That has been the case with me. Yet I didn't say, "Well, the response is not coming, I must else well move on." We cannot demand things of God. He has His own way and time of doing things. We must just have faith.

So says every faith on earth. I was brought up Catholic, by virtue of my birth. As I imagine you are the same faith now that you were brought up in (if not, please tell me more). You say “have faith�, but what you really mean is “have faith in the religion you were brought up in�. Because, as you say above: “a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.�

That’s a mighty fine bit of circular reasoning you got there.

I am a Christian in that I believe in Jesus yet I am deviating somewhat from mainstream Christianity due to research. Christianity espouses that God made Satan, I don't believe that. It espouses that the OT is the word of God; I don't believe that. I believe Satan and God are co-creators which is something Christianity doesn't espouse. There is a difference between having faith when on is not sure of God's existence and having faith, or trust in God, knowing He exists. Like a child has faith in his father. No one must have faith in a religion just hoping it's true.

Nonetheless, and despite you putting your own spin on Christianity, you remain a Christian as your parents taught you to be.

IMO, this is not a coincidence. It is can be very tough to disrobe the cloak of childhood teachings and indoctrination. I speak from experience.

Just because there are some things wrong in the Christian faith, does it mean I should throw the baby out with the bath water?

It does mean that you should re-evaluate what you believe and why. Which I did. And I found religion and faith as a whole very lacking.

If I didn't re-evaluate, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion about the OT nor think that some things accredited to Jesus was actually symbolic. I would have been like you had I not had the foundation of the Holy Spirit already and knew him. From the age of 12, I knew the power of demons.

It's suddenly God's fault that He lost you.

No, what I am saying is that lost souls of otherwise good people are his responsibility.

In other words, you do believe God is at fault. He didn't help the lost souls.

There are a lot of If’s for me to assign fault, but sure, if we accept as true everything you say, then yes. God is at fault. He set the unfair rules, so yes, he is responsible.

Everything I say?

Yes, because at this point, I no longer accept the premise as true. So, if, as you say, those are the facts …

I think it is rather a case of not wanting to consider what I say is true.

Perhaps due you own lack of understanding you believe it is His own fautl.

I can’t know what I don’t know. After all, I did seek answers when I had my doubts, as I was told to do.

Yet you automatically meant silence was due to a lack of evidence of God. You didn't give God a chance.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

Because I had the foundations; the roots planted deeply.

So if we suppose that aliens caused the floods, which ancient texts espouse, does that sudden negate the existence of the Holy Spirit? Does that suddenly prove Jesus is not the Son of God? Surely you should know that a lot of truth is mixed with lies?

Ancient aliens caused the flood? That is new to me, lol.

The aliens are also caused the gods and, yes, according to the Sumerian Text, they did cause the flood.

The truth about religion is simple, imo. It was invented by man as a means to explain that which he couldn’t understand: earthquakes, disease, his origin, mental illness etc.

You are entitled to that opinion.

I didn't say that atheism is the evil realm, either.

The bible certainly does.

Psalms 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.

This actually isn't referring to atheism as we know it. The non believers were pagan worshipers, as in non believers of Christ, who practised debauchery in their rituals hence abominable works.

There are other passages as well, and we will have to disagree. For the sake of argument, then, do you believe this passage does not apply to atheists? You believe that some can do good?

Of course atheists can do good. As I said, the context of non believers in the Psalm was referring to pagan worshipers not people who didn't believe in any god. I don't think atheists existed then.

Lol, atheists didn’t exist then?

Diagoras of Melos (5th century BC): Ancient Greek poet and sophist known as the Atheist of Milos, who declared that there were no Gods. Denis Diderot (1713–84): editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie. Theodore Drange (1934–): Philosopher of religion and Professor Emeritus at West Virginia University.

Atheism was probably quite old: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disb ... s-religion

-all the best

But you are talking about the 5th century BC. The Psalmists existed thousands of years ago. I am also talking about the region where the Psalmists lived.

[KenRU]

So, if one seeks him but cannot find, it must be the fault of the seeker, right? You have to assume this (though you have no way of knowing this to be true).

This is circular logic.

If you once believed in Jesus and did not find, did you not ask yourself if you were maybe putting up a barrier that didn't allow God in? Automatically believing you are not in the wrong is a barrier in my opinion.

Of course guilt was one of the first emotions I experienced. Then fear.

But me putting up a barrier? Nope. Didn’t happen.

Perpetual fear and guilt are the barriers you speak of.

You are either ignoring (repeatedly) what I am telling you or you are not paying attention.

There was a time when I was a believer with no doubts. Full stop. At that time, there were no barriers, no guilt, no second thoughts. Nada. Zip.

Then why did you feel guilt and fear when you left the church? Those things must have existed, at least subconsciously, for you to feel that. Why not just feel relieved and vindicated? You must have had doubts while you were a believer else you would have never left the Christian church. You would never had questioned your faith and be swayed by research.

When my doubts arose, I felt fear (hell, damnation, not being a good Catholic) and guilt (what had I done wrong to cause such doubts).

Those emotions occurred after the doubts arose, and I examined what was going on.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

But this is pure guesswork on your part. You have no reason (other than a preconceived answer) to suppose this.

Once again, you MUST discount what I am telling you. You believe me when my words suit you, but when they don’t, suddenly my honesty is suspect.

There is only one person in this conversation with a bias for a preconceived idea.

You.

If you didn't want scientific proof, then why was just not believing in the Holy Spirit not good enough for you then? You wanted, from what I gather, proof that is tangible.

It is not a question of wanting. It is a question of believability. It is a question of conflicting information.

It isn’t like one day I learned one bit of information and whammo! No more belief.

I can’t (no one can, I would argue) just believe something when I really don’t. That would just be pretending, and wouldn’t fool god, would it?

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic

You do recognize that the RCC is made up of people, who claim to be Roman Catholic, lol. Right?

The RCC, as in the Vatican, are made up of Satan worshipers that go out to deceive innocent Catholics. When I say the US is invading Syria, I don't mean all Americas are invading Syria.

To believe in Jesus, that sin is bad, the devil is bad and that Christ was the son of god. That was the message I rec’d from the RCC.

Did they succeed or fail?

Of course. Satan comes in the name of love. Do you think he is going to come in the name of hate? He wants to draw people in and deceive not drive them away.

Right. Drawing them in by railing against vices. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Please, explain this further. How does teaching kids about the love of Jesus, that sin is bad, and that god is love DRAW ONE INTO a life of Satan worship?

First of all, how can the RCC preach about Satanism and expect to have a Christian following? What they can do is preach what Christianity is all about but insert their little Satanic beliefs in it. Like Mary worship, etc. Also, the RCC has succeeded in brainwashing Catholics to such an extent, they won't hear anything bad about it. The Pope can do no wrong to most Catholics. Therefore the Pope can preach things and people will believe because they think he is an ambassador for Christ.

Here is one quote:
"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

There is a Satanic agenda to promote atheism. Is not Jesus the divine Son of God?

I’m not going to quibble with you over the use of one word (divine). The RCC teaches that Jesus is the son of god. That God is the creator of all things. Catholics (for the umpteenth time) do not think Mary is above god, or Jesus or that she is a god.

Nothing you said above shows that the RCC is in service to Satan.

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

No, he is making the point that anything can be misinterpreted. The Quran. The bible.

Do you doubt that people do horrible things in the name of Christianity?

I’d love to hear this rationale. Please, do illuminate me how Catholicism is equivalent to devil worship. Superstitious nonsense? Yes, I would agree. Homophobic? Yep, I’m on board.

Devil worship? Please do explain.

I'll give you an example:

Apologies, Claire, but this is laughable, and not even worthy of discussion. Do you have anything better than this to support such a wild claim?

Why not? You haven't exactly discussed what is laughable about it.

No, I don’t have to. Riku did a fine job in Post 1085.

Like I said, laughable. You have anything else?

I debunked Riku.

Where did that happen? Please provide a post #. Thanks.

Now let's say, hypothetically, that is St Peter's cross. Why are people praying to him and not Jesus?

Holy Toledo. Catholics believe that it is ok to pray to saints. It doesn’t mean they don’t pray to Jesus.

Do you believe in angels? Nothing about this is satanic. You can argue that it is not “true� Christianity if you want (a charge that Catholics can level at you as well) but neiter is satanic.

Silly.

And there is the bent cross.

Correction, it is the pastoral staff (signifies the shepherd of the universal church).

It is a blasphemous depiction of Jesus' crucifixion. In fact, it was considered so blasphemous that is was banned by the Church in 1921. Pope Francis brought it back.

Link: http: http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.c ... _5011.html (if you really are interested in knowing the ACTUAL origin of the various crosses)

Therefore you are putting the blame on God because he didn't provide you with signs. You think God should have made concessions for you.

Sigh. You are purposefully ignoring my responses. That is not very kind.

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status

See what you did there? You ignored what I said in favor (once again) of your bias. I never said she was elevated to god status.

Then there is a lot you don't know about Catholicism.

Says the non-Catholic to the Catholic, lol. Funny.

Why are their Catholics who pray to her?

Catholics pray to saints as well as to god and Jesus. They’re all in heaven aren’t they? You don’t have to like it or even approve, but to go to Satanism, well, that is just one crazy conspiratorial leap.

I’m the ex-Catholic, remember? I already think the religion is looney-kazooney (it’s a technical term). If it was delving into Satanism, I’d tell you, CE.

Catholicism is based on pagan worship.

Lol, biased much?

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Fact: As of 2010, there are nearly 1.1 billion Catholics, up from an estimated 291 million in 1910. Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population. Feb 19, 2013

From “The World's Catholic Population (Infographic) - Live Science�

By definition, you are wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

Again, you are ignoring what the definition says. I am sensing a common theme. You ignoring what you don’t like in favor of a pre-existing belief.

The definition says what a Catholic is, the definition says what paganism is. Catholicism is not paganism.

You are wrong.

But of course it is going to hide itself and not say outwardly it is based on paganism. It was what they belief that is a different story. Mary is Isis/Semiramis to them.

Tell me, why has the church adopted so many pagan practices like Easter eggs and Christmas trees?

All of Christianity has some basis, in earlier religions. Virgin births, son of god, etc.

Examples of these can be found in mankind’s religions prior to the advent of Christianity. If you wish to denounce this practice as proof of paganism, then you can denounce the practice of worshipping Christ himself as well (by your standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

That should be another thread altogether because those Zeitgeist claims have been debunked a long time ago.

Are you seriously arguing that Christ was the first person to have claimed he was born of a virgin?

Really?

The conspiracy is that grand?

No, I'm not. Isis is a moon goddess.

I’m done debunking your crazy claims, CE. It is getting way too tedious. It must be very comforting to know more about Catholics then Catholics. More about the personal beliefs of atheists then they do. And, more about god, Christ and religion than everyone who disagrees with you.

Truly, you are favored by god.

I came to this conclusion because the subconscious mind can be in conflict with with the conscious mind. Outwardly, you may have believed you may have been seeking Jesus, but subconsciously many not have because of your sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me be very clear. When I was a Catholic, I did not have a sense of entitlement. You can choose to believe me or not. I know it suits your pre-conceived conclusion to believe this to be true, but it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, you did. You thought that should should have had miraculous signs to keep you in the faith. You thought that before you lost your faith, obviously. That's self entitlement.

The idea of why wasn’t I helped came AFTER I lost my faith.

Believe it or not, it is up to you.

And it is because of self entitlement that you thought that if you could not get what you wanted from God, then you will say, "Stuff it."

No, you didn't get a sense of self entitlement after you left the faith. It is because of your self entitlement that you got disillusioned while in the faith.

I love it. The arrogance of such a position. Sorry to be so blunt, but what else would you call someone who claims to know you better than you?

Seriously, you are telling me how I lost my faith?

Wow. Can you tell me more about myself? I am finding this laughably enlightening.

I am only coming to this conclusion based on what you are telling me. You can take it or leave it.

Great, show me where I thought (as a believer) that I was entitled to such a thing?

When you can’t, I expect a retraction.

You thought God should have given you a sign so you could get rid of your doubts. That's self-entitlement. Why should you believe God should do that for you but many Christians don't expect that from Him. What makes you special?

You did it again, lol.

Pay attention, and reread what I asked you to do.

You did not prove your point. I purposely left in the whole conversation above so you (and everyone else) can see that you are ignoring what I have been saying. I EXPECTED NO SHORTCUT as a believer.

I repeat: There was no sense of entitlement, nor desire to seek a miracle for my faith to be restored. I read I learned and I observed. My faith and beliefs succumbed to reason, logic, science and compassion.

After my faith was lost, it was only then that I questioned why it happened, and why wasn’t I helped.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

A lot of things wrong here. I dismissed the idea of a personal god after much reflection, education and logical thought. It most certainly was not a simple hand-waving dismissal. There was nothing easy about it.

And sometimes what seems wrong or illogical is indeed wrong and/or illogical.

So you assumed that logic somehow negates the supernatural? They are separate things. If the disciples had only logic to depend on, they would not have been followers of Jesus.

Do you believe all the claims of supernatural events from other religions?

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate.

It does when you deny a measure of happiness for others for that which you want for yourself.

Sometimes what makes a person happy doesn't mean it is necessarily good for them.

And the circular logic is complete. Who decides this CE? You? It is the height of arrogance to deny someone happiness for which you want for yourself. Especially when you can be no more certain of your faith and its accuracy than any other religious person.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me?

No, he wouldn’t, because he knows all and knows that I was a believer, without doubts at one time. Despite the fact the CE doesn’t believe me, lol.

Or maybe you were indoctrinated.

If you are the same religion now as when your parents raised you, then you were indoctrinated too, lol.

Perhaps due you own lack of understanding you believe it is His own fautl.

I can’t know what I don’t know. After all, I did seek answers when I had my doubts, as I was told to do.

Yet you automatically meant silence was due to a lack of evidence of God. You didn't give God a chance.

There was nothing automatic about it. I spent years learning more about science and religion before my current views solidified.

God had plenty of chances, both when I was a believer with no doubts, and when the doubts arose.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

Because I had the foundations; the roots planted deeply.

In other words, YOU were indoctrinated?


CE, I tried to shorten our back and forth. It is simply way too long. If you feel I did not answer something you feel pertinent, please let me know.

-all the best

[marco]

In a very subtle way. Like embracing symbols we have no clue is evil. Like worshiping Mary when it is actually ISIS worship. Yes, he has that intelligence to deceive like that.

It is hard to argue with a person who maintains a wrong view and sticks to it. Catholics don't worship Mary - you must have been told this umpteen times. YOU THINK Catholics worship Mary, so that should be the area of argument, not the false claim. You are in error. Address that.

The sign of the cross is the sign of Christ's cross. As I said to you it traces out the four points of a proper cross; the video you showed DELIBERATELY has the man stopping just under his throat so as to indicate an inverted cross. This comes very close to evil in that it is making something wicked of something good, and accusing a Church of devil worship. The instigation for this MUST be Satanic, and it can be argued that you are on the wrong side rather than the Catholic Church.

The priests who are guilty of abuse, like any human being guilty of a crime, display human faults. They sin NOT because they are Catholics, but because they are flawed individuals. Murderers need not be inspired by Satan but if one is absolutely preoccupied or fascinated by Satanic practices, one will begin to see them in every walk of life, and turn perfectly good people into evil people. This, to me, looks very much like the mark of the Devil rather than the absurd claim that the Catholic hierarchy are devil worshippers. Christians were once regarded as cannibals. Should we accept this?

Perhaps a quiet visit to a quiet Catholic church will restore some balance. Science fiction is fine in its proper place.

[Claire Evans]

Did she shove it down your throat?

No, but she told me about this place of fire with gnashing of teeth that others will be going to (me also of course if I were to lose my beliefs).
This is brain washing, not necessarily shoving down a throat.

That's awful. I think I would also have left the faith if I was treated like this.

You are just going to have to trust me when I say Jesus is the Son of God.

Sure, says the devil, angel, alien, big foot, demon and the Catholic church is satanic person.

Point is, why should I automatically trust you but you mustn't trust me?

Drunk is an offensive word for having been filled with the Holy Spirit.

That is how we described our being filled. Go away with your worthless rebuttals.

The word you were indoctrinated with, I see.

Doesn't making a claim that you can speak in tongues make you unreliable? That's an odd claim.

It is an odd claim isn't it? If you were to pay attention, you would know that I don't make such a claim now days. When I did, yes, I also, like you should be viewed as un-reliable.

How can you speak different languages unknown to you as a believer yet stop now as a believer?

I will supply my proof when you prove that you can speak in tongues.

Tongues aren't real. When I did it as a believer, I was indoctrinated to believe that it was a real form of communication. I'm a man now and no longer suffer from this indoctrination, therefore, I cannot prove that anyone has ever really spoken in tongues since I don't believe anyone really has. Can you prove that anyone ever has?

There are some medical cases where people have spoken in languages they have never learnt before but it has been due to brain injury:

http://brobible.com/life/article/speaki ... fter-coma/

Then why are my claims of the Holy Spirit false but yours automatically are true?

Because my claims are of make believe. We both know that make believe happens in reality. No Holy Spirit claim can be shown to happen in reality.
By definition, real things are more likely to be true than things that cannot even be shown to ever be a reality.

So are you saying you never spoke languages you didn't understand?

By experiencing it myself. I have seen apparitions, things just appearing before my eyes, night terrors, etc.

I have no doubt that humans have imaginations. I do not doubt that you also have one. I do doubt that you actually saw any real apparition though. Again, you seem to be the type of person that is predisposed to believe in such things.

Well, I can't prove that I did but supernatural things have happened to me with witnesses present.

Well, if it is inane to believe Satan is the source of evil, then where did it come from? A primordial soup?

It's just a word Claire. A word made up to express a bad thing.
Where did it come from? Well, in Christianity, it came from Christians. You see, people I believe have always known what is good or bad (excluding psychopaths obviously). Religions were invented to provide a reason as to why there is good or bad (along with filling other needs). Religions like Christianity invented a sin concept and called such acts 'evil'. They even invented an Adam and Eve story to explain how this concept of evil came about. No primordial soup required, just what we witness in the real world.

Actually Satan is a real being in the OT, Jewish also, of course. It is not a Christian concept. In fact, Satan comes from the word Saturn. You still don't explain where evil came from.

Why do you automatically dismiss aliens?

I don't. I do dismiss your claims that Muhammad met with aliens though until you can show that it has any merit.

I said I believe it, not that it is a fact.

If you did your research into the Catholic Church, you would know it is Satanic.

You have been educated on this recently.

See post 1103.

Ironic in that many Christians don't believe in aliens, yet it is in their own Bible. They like to call them "fallen angels".

Please show that you speak the truth. Show that aliens are fallen angels of a god and inform us on how you came about this information that escapes the rest of us.

Please don't miss the part in bold.

I came across a translator who as employed by the Vatican to literally translate the OT and it suggests that aliens are the ones spoken about instead of God as Christians know him. It's not exclusive information. You just need to do an Internet search.

[Clownboat]

That's awful. I think I would also have left the faith if I was treated like this.

The opposite is true Claire. Remember, this is Mommy and you love and believe her. This type of indoctrination, which could be argued to be child abuse is actually quite effective for keeping children in the faith.

Point is, why should I automatically trust you but you mustn't trust me?

I'm not the one making outlandish unevidence claims. That's why.

The word you were indoctrinated with, I see.

Drunk is the word we used. You saying it is offensive is not a rebuttal. Whether I was indoctrinated or not. It's the word we used whether you like it or not or whether you find it offensive or not.

How can you speak different languages unknown to you as a believer yet stop now as a believer?

That is the question I asked you. I'm still filled with the Holy Ghost it seems. The option that it is all a crock of poo is still on the table of course.

There are some medical cases where people have spoken in languages they have never learnt before but it has been due to brain injury:

http://brobible.com/life/article/speaki ... fter-coma/

Please show that you speak the truth.
- He told CNN he learned that in 1987 he operated a consulting company called Kultur Konsult Nykoping.
That is somewhat of a Swedish connection.
- Now that Boatwright's story has spread to the Swedish media, several Swedes have come forth to say they knew him in the 1980s.
- Also, look up fugue state.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/health/amnesia-swedish/

Notice how my information comes from CNN and not BroBible?

So are you saying you never spoke languages you didn't understand?

I did, and I still can. I no longer must believe that these languages are actually true though. That I have been freed from.

Well, I can't prove that I did but supernatural things have happened to me with witnesses present.

This is a claim I am all too familiar with.
I was heavily involved in traveling ministry. Would would do many church summer and winter camps and such. This is where a lot of projection was being done. We would be doing a drama skit and the CD started to skip. Satan!
Another time we had bats flying around us on the way to the worship hall (it was that time of night after all). Yep, Satan again!
I just can't know that you are any different then these silly projections I once witnessed myself.

Actually Satan is a real being in the OT, Jewish also, of course.

Right, and Spider man is a real being in the comics. Not sure your point.

You still don't explain where evil came from.

Sure did, evil is a word invented by humans.
I don't even need to know your explanation, I'm sure it involves devils and demons though. You know those things that make CD's skip and bats fly at night.

Please show that you speak the truth. Show that aliens are fallen angels of a god and inform us on how you came about this information that escapes the rest of us.

Please don't miss the part in bold.

I came across a translator who as employed by the Vatican to literally translate the OT and it suggests that aliens are the ones spoken about instead of God as Christians know him. It's not exclusive information. You just need to do an Internet search.

Abraham Lincoln said it the best. Not everything you read on the internet is true. (I read this on the internet by the way, so you can know it is true).

[Claire Evans]

Did you consider that the theory of evolution is not all that is made out to be?

You cannot deceive me. I now have quite a bit of knowledge about evolution.
Molecules to man works only on the ignorant. I am no longer ignorant.

So because you believe it because you did research, then it must be true? Have you ever considered what you were taught is actually not true?

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/0 ... -part-one/

Why did I learn about various global flood scenarios and not lose my faith?

Since you asked, I believe it is because you are unthinking and would prefer to amend reality to your pet notions than to ever amend your notions themselves.

I think it is a case of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. It's either or for you.

Evidence:
"Why do you believe claims about Jesus but not Mohammed?"
- You would prefer to inject aliens into the Mohammed story than to consider the notion that Mohammed made it up (or someone on his behalf).
You have notions to protect.
I on the other hand am open to the gods and aliens and have no preconceived notions that they are real or false.

Allah is a moon god. There are just so many moon gods so why am I to believe the claim that Allah is the only one?

There is a common theme about aliens and religious texts. Hindu texts are similar. Muslims do tend to acknowledge that aliens appear in the Quran.

https://www.quora.com/Does-Islam-believ ... iens-exist

So do I know for a fact that Mohammed was in contact with ETs? Nope, but I believe it is possible.

There are various questions that I don't believe you considered when saying it is God's fault, hypothetically in your case, and nothing to do with you.

Ha ha ha ha ha! More preconceived notions that you MUST protect. You could not have done this at a better time. Thanks for evidencing my claim further!

You seem to think that just because I don't know your life circumstances that I can't accurately give you the reason why you don't believe in something because of what you have said here. That's arrogance. You think you are beyond correction.

Have you considered that you misinterpreted God's answers or saw a lack of response immediately as never answering?

You just won't listen will you? I fought tooth and nail to keep my beliefs. And this 'immediately' crap from you is beyond tiring.

Fighting tooth and nail does not mean you understood God. What if I am here to explain why you don't believe now? What if God has sent me to reach out to you? You don't know but you think that you are beyond correction now.

Yes, you are right. I do not know your personal circumstances but I ask with every person: what kind of response were you looking for? In what form?

How many times must I tell you?
I prayed for god to use me as he will and to make himself real in my life. I never asked for evidence or for a miracle.

Oh, then why did you say you didn't get answers if you weren't looking for evidence?

"Oswald Chambers...

Nothing of interest was read.

Here is another thought:

Please stop. I had 2 decades of preaching thrown at me. I don't come here to get preached at by you.

This proves everything to me. You don't want to know. You cannot bear the thought of having to reassess what you believed and why you don't believe it anymore. Instead, you go and cover your ears and go, "Na, na, na!"

I think you gave up on God too soon.

If you really think this, then from your posting here, I am assured to be right. The last thing I want is to be in agreement with one of your notions after all. What's next, demons, devils, leprechauns, unicorns, aliens and satanic Christian churches? Please.

I really am not surprised why you didn't know God and why you believe it is God's fault. Let's not further waste each other's time.

[Claire Evans]

So, if one seeks him but cannot find, it must be the fault of the seeker, right? You have to assume this (though you have no way of knowing this to be true).

This is circular logic.

If you once believed in Jesus and did not find, did you not ask yourself if you were maybe putting up a barrier that didn't allow God in? Automatically believing you are not in the wrong is a barrier in my opinion.

Of course guilt was one of the first emotions I experienced. Then fear.

But me putting up a barrier? Nope. Didn’t happen.

Perpetual fear and guilt are the barriers you speak of.

You are either ignoring (repeatedly) what I am telling you or you are not paying attention.

There was a time when I was a believer with no doubts. Full stop. At that time, there were no barriers, no guilt, no second thoughts. Nada. Zip.

Then why did you feel guilt and fear when you left the church? Those things must have existed, at least subconsciously, for you to feel that. Why not just feel relieved and vindicated? You must have had doubts while you were a believer else you would have never left the Christian church. You would never had questioned your faith and be swayed by research.

When my doubts arose, I felt fear (hell, damnation, not being a good Catholic) and guilt (what had I done wrong to cause such doubts).

Those emotions occurred after the doubts arose, and I examined what was going on.

Since you have conceded that those emotions existed while you still believed, then there were barriers. Even if it was because you felt you were letting down the church.

How does religion enslave people? Through fear. Make people fearful and they will less likely stray from their religion. When people are frightened, they are more likely to be compliant.


Romans 8:15

15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.�

I do commend that you wanted to think for yourself. It's just unfortunate that you dismissed Christianity altogether believing there was no truth in it.

I suppose you may have secretly wanted scientific proof all this time.

But this is pure guesswork on your part. You have no reason (other than a preconceived answer) to suppose this.

Once again, you MUST discount what I am telling you. You believe me when my words suit you, but when they don’t, suddenly my honesty is suspect.

There is only one person in this conversation with a bias for a preconceived idea.

You.

If you didn't want scientific proof, then why was just not believing in the Holy Spirit not good enough for you then? You wanted, from what I gather, proof that is tangible.

It is not a question of wanting. It is a question of believability. It is a question of conflicting information.



It isn’t like one day I learned one bit of information and whammo! No more belief.

You wanted things to be believable so it could conveniently make you not doubt. What can of conflicting information are you talking about? Since when do contradictions negate everything in the Bible? Surely, learning about other pagan flood stories does negate the story of Noah being true. However, is there anything that can prove that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist?

I can’t (no one can, I would argue) just believe something when I really don’t. That would just be pretending, and wouldn’t fool god, would it?

Absolutely, but do you really want to consider that you may be wrong?

I'm not judging Catholics.

Make no mistake, you most definitely are.

The RCC, yes, but not the average Catholic

You do recognize that the RCC is made up of people, who claim to be Roman Catholic, lol. Right?

The RCC, as in the Vatican, are made up of Satan worshipers that go out to deceive innocent Catholics. When I say the US is invading Syria, I don't mean all Americas are invading Syria.

To believe in Jesus, that sin is bad, the devil is bad and that Christ was the son of god. That was the message I rec’d from the RCC.

Did they succeed or fail?

Didn't the RCC succeed in making you feel fearful and guilty? Those emotions that Jesus said we shouldn't have?

Of course. Satan comes in the name of love. Do you think he is going to come in the name of hate? He wants to draw people in and deceive not drive them away.

Right. Drawing them in by railing against vices. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Please, explain this further. How does teaching kids about the love of Jesus, that sin is bad, and that god is love DRAW ONE INTO a life of Satan worship?

First of all, how can the RCC preach about Satanism and expect to have a Christian following? What they can do is preach what Christianity is all about but insert their little Satanic beliefs in it. Like Mary worship, etc. Also, the RCC has succeeded in brainwashing Catholics to such an extent, they won't hear anything bad about it. The Pope can do no wrong to most Catholics. Therefore the Pope can preach things and people will believe because they think he is an ambassador for Christ.

Here is one quote:
"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."

There is a Satanic agenda to promote atheism. Is not Jesus the divine Son of God?

I’m not going to quibble with you over the use of one word (divine). The RCC teaches that Jesus is the son of god. That God is the creator of all things. Catholics (for the umpteenth time) do not think Mary is above god, or Jesus or that she is a god.

Nothing you said above shows that the RCC is in service to Satan.

Things that it teaches and things they really believe can be two different things. You cannot have a head of the RCC saying God is not divine. If He is not divine, then is He fallible?

“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,� he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.�

Yes, he is equating evil ISIS to Christian disciples.

No, he is making the point that anything can be misinterpreted. The Quran. The bible.

Do you doubt that people do horrible things in the name of Christianity?

No, he is saying that Islam makes disciples of Muslims like ISIS who kill. Did Jesus have disciples who coerced others to convert by threatening with death?

Yes, people have done horrible things in Christianity but is it what Jesus espoused?

I’d love to hear this rationale. Please, do illuminate me how Catholicism is equivalent to devil worship. Superstitious nonsense? Yes, I would agree. Homophobic? Yep, I’m on board.

Devil worship? Please do explain.

I'll give you an example:

Apologies, Claire, but this is laughable, and not even worthy of discussion. Do you have anything better than this to support such a wild claim?

Why not? You haven't exactly discussed what is laughable about it.

No, I don’t have to. Riku did a fine job in Post 1085.

Like I said, laughable. You have anything else?

I debunked Riku.

Where did that happen? Please provide a post #. Thanks.

Post 1103

Now let's say, hypothetically, that is St Peter's cross. Why are people praying to him and not Jesus?

Holy Toledo. Catholics believe that it is ok to pray to saints. It doesn’t mean they don’t pray to Jesus.

I thought it when people go to church, they sign themselves with the cross honouring Jesus? They don't believe it's Peter! In the Bible, there is absolutely no way it condones praying to anyone but Jesus.

Do you believe in angels? Nothing about this is satanic. You can argue that it is not “true� Christianity if you want (a charge that Catholics can level at you as well) but neiter is satanic.

Silly.

You mean, you don't believe it is Satanic. I do not know what is so hard to understand about the meaning of an inverted cross. Satanists do not despise Peter.

And there is the bent cross.

Correction, it is the pastoral staff (signifies the shepherd of the universal church).

So what if it is a staff? That is what they say it means. Are they going to tell you it's Satanic? Just look at it. It's horrible.

It is a blasphemous depiction of Jesus' crucifixion. In fact, it was considered so blasphemous that is was banned by the Church in 1921. Pope Francis brought it back.

Link: http: http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.c ... _5011.html (if you really are interested in knowing the ACTUAL origin of the various crosses)

It actually does not help your case to cite a Catholic source. They obviously will regurgitate what the church says. However, it does not explain why the Church would ban this cross in 1921. Why does diverging ideas on what it means?

I don’t think you know what it means to be a Catholic. My experience was all about Jesus.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

She is important, but Jesus was the primary focus of my education.

Why is she important?

She should be respected. Why? Because god choose her to be the mother of “our� savior. I would think that, as a believer, that might be of some significant import to you, too. She did have a rather important job, you know, raising the son of god and mankind’s savior.

Silly Catholics.

It is silly to elevate her to god status

See what you did there? You ignored what I said in favor (once again) of your bias. I never said she was elevated to god status.

Then there is a lot you don't know about Catholicism.

Says the non-Catholic to the Catholic, lol. Funny.

Says the non Catholic to a self-confessed indoctrinated Catholic.

Why are their Catholics who pray to her?

Catholics pray to saints as well as to god and Jesus. They’re all in heaven aren’t they? You don’t have to like it or even approve, but to go to Satanism, well, that is just one crazy conspiratorial leap.

I’m the ex-Catholic, remember? I already think the religion is looney-kazooney (it’s a technical term). If it was delving into Satanism, I’d tell you, CE.

Where in the Bible does it say that we should pray to saints? Or is it a cover to justify communicating with different gods? As an ex-Catholic, you would never admit there is Satanism in the church because as I say, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Even most ex Catholics will never find fault with the RCC.

Catholicism is based on pagan worship.

Lol, biased much?

Pagan: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Fact: As of 2010, there are nearly 1.1 billion Catholics, up from an estimated 291 million in 1910. Catholics comprise 50 percent of all Christians worldwide and 16 percent of the world's total population. Feb 19, 2013

From “The World's Catholic Population (Infographic) - Live Science�

By definition, you are wrong. Perhaps you meant something else?

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

Again, you are ignoring what the definition says. I am sensing a common theme. You ignoring what you don’t like in favor of a pre-existing belief.

The definition says what a Catholic is, the definition says what paganism is. Catholicism is not paganism.

You are wrong.

But of course it is going to hide itself and not say outwardly it is based on paganism. It was what they belief that is a different story. Mary is Isis/Semiramis to them.

Tell me, why has the church adopted so many pagan practices like Easter eggs and Christmas trees?

All of Christianity has some basis, in earlier religions. Virgin births, son of god, etc.

Examples of these can be found in mankind’s religions prior to the advent of Christianity. If you wish to denounce this practice as proof of paganism, then you can denounce the practice of worshipping Christ himself as well (by your standard): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miraculous_births

That should be another thread altogether because those Zeitgeist claims have been debunked a long time ago.

Are you seriously arguing that Christ was the first person to have claimed he was born of a virgin?

Really?

The conspiracy is that grand?

Let's start a new thread. Which god should we talk about first?

No, I'm not. Isis is a moon goddess.

I’m done debunking your crazy claims, CE. It is getting way too tedious. It must be very comforting to know more about Catholics then Catholics. More about the personal beliefs of atheists then they do. And, more about god, Christ and religion than everyone who disagrees with you.

Truly, you are favored by god.

I'm afraid that is a cop out for someone who has been refuted and won't admit it. Here's the algebra: Isis moon god - Mary moon goddess as depicted in artwork. That is not a hard concept to follow.

I came to this conclusion because the subconscious mind can be in conflict with with the conscious mind. Outwardly, you may have believed you may have been seeking Jesus, but subconsciously many not have because of your sense of entitlement.

Ok, let me be very clear. When I was a Catholic, I did not have a sense of entitlement. You can choose to believe me or not. I know it suits your pre-conceived conclusion to believe this to be true, but it doesn’t make it true.

Yes, you did. You thought that should should have had miraculous signs to keep you in the faith. You thought that before you lost your faith, obviously. That's self entitlement.

The idea of why wasn’t I helped came AFTER I lost my faith.

Believe it or not, it is up to you.

And it is because of self entitlement that you thought that if you could not get what you wanted from God, then you will say, "Stuff it."

No, you didn't get a sense of self entitlement after you left the faith. It is because of your self entitlement that you got disillusioned while in the faith.

I love it. The arrogance of such a position. Sorry to be so blunt, but what else would you call someone who claims to know you better than you?

Seriously, you are telling me how I lost my faith?

I repeat: There was no sense of entitlement, nor desire to seek a miracle for my faith to be restored. I read I learned and I observed. My faith and beliefs succumbed to reason, logic, science and compassion.

After my faith was lost, it was only then that I questioned why it happened, and why wasn’t I helped.

But you didn't think that trying to marry logic with the supernatural, that is God, is not possible?

Well, that is part of why I lost my faith in the first place. Clearly, one needs to NOT think about such contradictions as espoused in the bible. And it’s messages.

Therefore the answer to you would be to dismiss God altogether. In all due respect, that seems the easy way out. Sometimes what may contrary actually is not.

A lot of things wrong here. I dismissed the idea of a personal god after much reflection, education and logical thought. It most certainly was not a simple hand-waving dismissal. There was nothing easy about it.

And sometimes what seems wrong or illogical is indeed wrong and/or illogical.

So you assumed that logic somehow negates the supernatural? They are separate things. If the disciples had only logic to depend on, they would not have been followers of Jesus.

Do you believe all the claims of supernatural events from other religions?

I think it is possible.

How did you losing your faith make you more compassionate?

I support the right of same sex couples to get married and adopt children. I do not begrudge them the same pursuit of happiness that I have in life.

That is just one example. There is more if you are open minded enough to believe me.

Not agreeing with something does not make one less compassionate.

It does when you deny a measure of happiness for others for that which you want for yourself.

Sometimes what makes a person happy doesn't mean it is necessarily good for them.

And the circular logic is complete. Who decides this CE? You? It is the height of arrogance to deny someone happiness for which you want for yourself. Especially when you can be no more certain of your faith and its accuracy than any other religious person.

It all depends on the viewpoint but my viewpoint does not decide whether homosexuals get married or not. Therefore I'm not denying anyone happiness.

Most of the time we cannot. Listen to God's small voice, not some thunderous boom in the sky.

When your faith declined, did you pray to God about it?

Of course.

And what response did you get that made you think it wasn't good enough?

I rec’d no response. If I did receive a response, I would not have left my faith.

You know, a response can come in the form of silence which is only revealed much later.

Yes, no response from god sounds very much like no response from someone who isn’t there.

So you think that if you don't get a response immediately then that proves God doesn't exist? How about God finding the right time to reveal it when you are in a position to understand it.

Well then, I have nothing to worry about then, do I? I can continue on as a non-believer and god will ultimately reveal himself to me to right my ship, so to speak – using this logic.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, he missed an opportunity to keep me as a believer in good ole JC.

But God could ask you, "Did you truly seek me?

No, he wouldn’t, because he knows all and knows that I was a believer, without doubts at one time. Despite the fact the CE doesn’t believe me, lol.

Or maybe you were indoctrinated.

If you are the same religion now as when your parents raised you, then you were indoctrinated too, lol.

That's not necessarily so. Some may be blessed to know the true God. They just happened to have the right belief.

Perhaps due you own lack of understanding you believe it is His own fautl.

I can’t know what I don’t know. After all, I did seek answers when I had my doubts, as I was told to do.

Yet you automatically meant silence was due to a lack of evidence of God. You didn't give God a chance.

There was nothing automatic about it. I spent years learning more about science and religion before my current views solidified.

God had plenty of chances, both when I was a believer with no doubts, and when the doubts arose.

Oh yes, God's fault again.

You do not think that maybe the problem lies with you.

At the time I was a believer, it was most definitely not my fault.

No wonder you couldn't find God.

Right, that makes perfect sense. I was a believer. Primed for a life with Jesus. Along comes life which calls into question many of the things I was told to accept as true. In fact, I learn things that explicitly show the bible to be wrong about (The Flood, evolution, others) and my faith begins to wane. I read more. I learn more by talking to those of faith. But all this does is bring me away from my faith. Those were my actions. God, he does nothing.

Totally my fault.

That is YOUR logic.

But rise above throwing the baby out with the bath water. I did it so why couldn't you?

I could say the same to you right now. I threw off the shackles of baseless faith and superstitious religiosity, why can’t you?

Because I had the foundations; the roots planted deeply.

In other words, YOU were indoctrinated?

I knew you were going to say that. What I meant was that I also knew God existed from very young. I didn't understand Him like we are taught now. I just felt a presence. I have a measure of ESP and therefore am far more susceptible to supernatural presences.

CE, I tried to shorten our back and forth. It is simply way too long. If you feel I did not answer something you feel pertinent, please let me know.

-all the best

I think we have covered everything.

[marco]

Didn't the RCC succeed in making you feel fearful and guilty? Those emotions that Jesus said we shouldn't have?

Jesus mentioned gnashing teeth and few being picked - does that make for comfort. Religion spreads fear.

Please, explain this further. How does teaching kids about the love of Jesus, that sin is bad, and that god is love DRAW ONE INTO a life of Satan worship?

Preaching hatred about other Christians is hardly the work of Jesus. It more resembles Satan.

You mean, you don't believe it is Satanic. I do not know what is so hard to understand about the meaning of an inverted cross.

Your video is simply spreading lies to generate hatred. In this respect the maker is very close to being satanic. I have no idea why you defend it.

Isn't Mary the most important in Catholicism?

Despite having things explained, you continue to talk as if you have not heard. Here is the correct Catholic viewpoint, not the one you've read about in your science fiction stuff.
Mary is HONOURED as being the mother of Jesus. She is NOT worshipped - only God is given worship. Latria is what is paid to God. (worship); hyperdulia is given to Mary (honour). But you continue to say:


" It is silly to elevate her to god status "

Of course it is. And they don't. So accept this.

Even most ex Catholics will never find fault with the RCC.

The fault was found with the Bible. The RC method is maybe the best of the bunch, but people leave because the basic biblical message about the bullying Yahweh is unacceptable. Details of sprinkling water here and there or honouring Joseph are minutiae. The resurrection, which we're discussing, is one more nail in the coffin of superstition. Your fantasies about upside down crosses and sweaty Satan roaming around are funny but hardly merit being taken seriously.

No, Catholicism has an outward appearance of Christians but underneath, well, it's dark and evil.

It is amazing what watching a few funny videos will do to one's perspective. I laughed when I saw them but I suppose there are impressionable folk who take them seriously. I watch people at mass praying devoutly, old, sensible, pious folk who are not evil and don't subscribe to your vision of wickedness. You are as wrong as wrong can get. But there is a funny side to what you spout so let's just laugh.

[Claire Evans]

In a very subtle way. Like embracing symbols we have no clue is evil. Like worshiping Mary when it is actually ISIS worship. Yes, he has that intelligence to deceive like that.

It is hard to argue with a person who maintains a wrong view and sticks to it. Catholics don't worship Mary - you must have been told this umpteen times. YOU THINK Catholics worship Mary, so that should be the area of argument, not the false claim. You are in error. Address that.

Didn't I submit this to you before? I showed you pictures of Mary worship in post 1072.

The sign of the cross is the sign of Christ's cross. As I said to you it traces out the four points of a proper cross; the video you showed DELIBERATELY has the man stopping just under his throat so as to indicate an inverted cross. This comes very close to evil in that it is making something wicked of something good, and accusing a Church of devil worship. The instigation for this MUST be Satanic, and it can be argued that you are on the wrong side rather than the Catholic Church.

I disagree but I'll show you another video, anyway.





It's obvious to see.

The right way to do it to make the cross upright is to touch the forehead and then touch the naval then shoulders.

The priests who are guilty of abuse, like any human being guilty of a crime, display human faults. They sin NOT because they are Catholics, but because they are flawed individuals. Murderers need not be inspired by Satan but if one is absolutely preoccupied or fascinated by Satanic practices, one will begin to see them in every walk of life, and turn perfectly good people into evil people. This, to me, looks very much like the mark of the Devil rather than the absurd claim that the Catholic hierarchy are devil worshippers. Christians were once regarded as cannibals. Should we accept this?

Perhaps a quiet visit to a quiet Catholic church will restore some balance. Science fiction is fine in its proper place.

I never said they sin because they are Catholics! I have never claimed that. There are Satanists who are posing as Catholics. You call paedophiles "flawed" individuals? That's disturbing.

Oh, yes, there are Satanists posing as Christians who cannibalize. That's what they do.

Did you know that Vatican means, "Divining Serpent"?

What does serpent mean?

Revelation 20:2


He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.