Vatican says aliens could exist

Ekancone

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Even worse, a book that we know has been corrupted.

Fixed.

wolfsbane

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats pretty amazing.

If Jesus christ himself came down from heaven and told people that the bible was corrupted and unrepresentative of the views of his father, you would automatically reject that testimony as the work of the devil?

It seems that you are putting your entire trust in a book that could so easily have been corrupted, that you are prepared to dismiss anything at all that contradicts your conviction as false and evil.

It's logical suicide. You chose an arbitrary position at one point in your life, and then chose to divorce yourself from even the hypothetical possibility that you might have been wrong in that choice, and in fact use evidence to the contrary as some kind of proof that you were correct all along?


I'll say it straight. You don't really believe in 'God'. You believe in a book. You put all your faith in the validity of a human invention that could so easily be wrong and specifically state that anything that might cause you to re-assess that belief is necessarily false.

It's very sad.

I believe in the God who wrote the Book. Anyone else claiming to know the Book is a lie is not of God:
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Even worse, a book that we know has been corrupted.

No, we don't. We only hear of allegations to that effect, from people who despise the God revealed in it. Hardly know - more gnosis.:D

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, we don't. We only hear of allegations to that effect, from people who despise the God revealed in it. Hardly know - more gnosis.:D

Well I believe it is pretty well accepted that the Bible has been changed over the years.

Examples include:

- the story of Jesus saving the adultress ("Let he without sin cast the first stone") not being found in any of the earliest or best copies of the Gospel of John and is almost certainly a later creation by a Christian scribe.

- the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark ending with no one ever seeing the risen Jesus, the endings we have today again being later additions.

- the famous John 3:3 conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus where Jesus claims that we must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This conversation could not have happened as it hinges on a double entendre for "born again" which is only found in Greek and cannot be replicated in Aramaic. The Greek speaking author of John slipped up when he invented this story.

- there is no explicit mention of the trinity in any Greek copy of 1 John 5 ("There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit").

There are plenty more examples of the Bible being unreliable and having been changed by Christians over the first few hundred years of the religion. There are hundreds of thousands of variations between all of our copies of the Gospels, most insignificant but some very important. I mean to say that it has not been corrupted is a hard position to take when you don't actually have the original copies of the Gospels to know what the uncorrupted versions were.

To say that the Bible has not been corrupted, I'm afraid, just does not stand up to the facts.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

- the famous John 3:3 conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus where Jesus claims that we must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This conversation could not have happened as it hinges on a double entendre for "born again" which is only found in Greek and cannot be replicated in Aramaic. The Greek speaking author of John slipped up when he invented this story.

Sorry, you are wrong about this.

The conversation does not hinge on any double entendre at all. Some have tried to make out that an entendre exists in the Greek (between 'born again' and 'born from above'). However, the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus makes perfect sense, both linguistically and theologically, when we simply stick to the translation 'born again'. This is true whether you read it in Aramaic, Greek, or English.

When evangelical theologians say they believe the 'Bible' to be inspired or inerrant they are not talking about any particular translation. What they place their trust in is the original autographs. The point of textual criticism is to ensure that our translations are based on the most accurate Hebrew and Greek texts possible - as close to the original autographs as we can determine.

Ekancone

On another note, I was watching a programme on Discovery about the gospel of Judas and heard that there were as many as thirty gospels back in the 1st century AD, and that it wasn't until later that these were rejected. I can't help but think that power politics was at work during these debates about which gospels were accurate or not, such was the power that such documents promised. How can you such trust in these events? And do modern Christians even consider such gospels today?

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

On another note, I was watching a programme on Discovery about the gospel of Judas and heard that there were as many as thirty gospels back in the 1st century AD, and that it wasn't until later that these were rejected. I can't help but think that power politics was at work during these debates about which gospels were accurate or not, such was the power that such documents promised. How can you such trust in these events? And do modern Christians even consider such gospels today?

Yes, modern Christians do consider such gospels today. In fact, if you do a little googling you will discover that many of the websites giving information on such documents, often publishing their full text online, are run by Christians. This is because we believe that a fuller knowledge of early Christianity can only help us to appreciate and understand the Bible better.

Mentioning the 1st Century AD in the same sentence as the Gospel of Judas is a bit of a stretch since the earliest suggested dating for that particular 'gospel' is well into the Second Century.

There certainly were other documents floating about in the 1st Century, but they also tended to be rejected in the 1st Century. Churches used those documents which met certain criteria (apostolic authorship, squared with the memories of other eye-witnesses, deemed useful to promoting worship and Christian living etc.) while spurious documents either faded away or became the preserve of little sects and cults. The whole process appears to have been much more organic and grass-roots than the hierachical power plays imagined by conspiracy theorists.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Yes, modern Christians do consider such gospels today. In fact, if you do a little googling you will discover that many of the websites giving information on such documents, often publishing their full text online, are run by Christians. This is because we believe that a fuller knowledge of early Christianity can only help us to appreciate and understand the Bible better.

Mentioning the 1st Century AD in the same sentence as the Gospel of Judas is a bit of a stretch since the earliest suggested dating for that particular 'gospel' is well into the Second Century.

There certainly were other documents floating about in the 1st Century, but they also tended to be rejected in the 1st Century. Churches used those documents which met certain criteria (apostolic authorship, squared with the memories of other eye-witnesses, deemed useful to promoting worship and Christian living etc.) while spurious documents either faded away or became the preserve of little sects and cults. The whole process appears to have been much more organic and grass-roots than the hierachical power plays imagined by conspiracy theorists.

Well its hardly a conspiracy theory, is it? Anyone with half a brain would realise that such matters will always be ruled by politics and not some fairy-tale debate where everyone is acting out of the best interests of the 'truth'. Or are we to believe that these were the only moments in human history where politics didn't come into play? Are we to believe that these people only kept the gospels that spoke the 'truth' or the 'truth', ie the ones that suited whatever agenda they had. To believe otherwise would be the height of naivety.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

The conversation does not hinge on any double entendre at all. Some have tried to make out that an entendre exists in the Greek (between 'born again' and 'born from above'). However, the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus makes perfect sense, both linguistically and theologically, when we simply stick to the translation 'born again'. This is true whether you read it in Aramaic, Greek, or English.

My understanding of the criticism of this particular passage is that the Aramaic term for born "from above" is completely different to the Aramaic term for born "a second time". However the misunderstanding of Nicodemus is completely understandable if the conversation is in Greek.

The Gospel, as written in Greek, said that Jesus claimed that "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anothen." Anothen is a Greek word meaning either "from above" or "a second time", depending on the context. Jesus meant "from above" but Nicodemus misunderstood him and thought he meant a physical rebirth from his mother.

If the conversation had taken place in Aramaic there would be no way to reproduce the misunderstanding. The Aramaic term for a heavenly rebirth is completely different to the term for a physical birth.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

My understanding of the criticism of this particular passage is that the Aramaic term for born "from above" is completely different to the Aramaic term for born "a second time". However the misunderstanding of Nicodemus is completely understandable if the conversation is in Greek.

The Gospel, as written in Greek, said that Jesus claimed that "No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born anothen." Anothen is a Greek word meaning either "from above" or "a second time", depending on the context. Jesus meant "from above" but Nicodemus misunderstood him and thought he meant a physical rebirth from his mother.

If the conversation had taken place in Aramaic there would be no way to reproduce the misunderstanding. The Aramaic term for a heavenly rebirth is completely different to the term for a physical birth.

No, the conversation makes perfect sense if you scrap the 'born from above' stuff and translate it as 'born again'.

To receive Jesus Christ as Saviour is to become a new creation. All the old sins are removed and it's like getting a brand new start in life - like being born all over again.

Nicodemus was thinking in purely physical terms rather than spiritual terms and so, quite Naturally, asked "How on earth can you be born again? Do you have to go back into your mother's womb?"

Biro

Akrasia wrote: »

So you admit that the threat of punishment in the afterlife is little if any incentive to act in a moral way, and that the laws we make for ourselves are much more effective at controlling behaviour?

In todays Ireland, yes. But what's your point? Do you think that the fact that people like yourself don't heed these beliefs that it proves anything? It doesn't. What I believe doesn't prove anything. What you or anyone else believes doesn't prove anything either way.

Akrasia wrote: »

Nope, but nobody said life was fair. There is no guarantee of justice in this world, and the belief that justice will come in an afterlife is just wishful thinking

Maybe, that's your opinion.

Akrasia wrote: »

Am I really? Every christian has a different opinion of what christianity is. Some of the most informed christians on this forum have long argued that all it takes is for you to believe and genuinely ask for forgiveness and you'll be forgiven of any sin (including genocide)

Yes, really you are. An attitude like yours obviously isn't genuine. The whole "I can do what I like, and then be sorry, and I'm sound" idea is foolish.
Also, you may notice I highlighted the "on this forum" part. Without any disrespect to anyone, there's a lot more people in the world with a lot more knowledge than exists on this forum. Not everyone here has all the answers, no matter what their belief or lack there-of is.

Akrasia

Biro wrote: »

Yes, really you are. An attitude like yours obviously isn't genuine. The whole "I can do what I like, and then be sorry, and I'm sound" idea is foolish.
Also, you may notice I highlighted the "on this forum" part. Without any disrespect to anyone, there's a lot more people in the world with a lot more knowledge than exists on this forum. Not everyone here has all the answers, no matter what their belief or lack there-of is.

There is nobody in the world that has 'all the answers' because practically every christian interprets things differently.
That was my point. There is absolutely no consensus on what is necessary for salvation. It used to be that you could buy salvation by donating money and land to the church, it used to be (not very long ago) that un-baptized babies could not be buried on consecrated ground. There is no agreement on whether god saves good people who never heard the gospel and thus never got a chance to be saved. There is no agreement on whether or not it is a requirement to observe the sacraments, or whether private faith is adequate.
There are countless other disagreements that I couldn't be bothered going in to right now

panda100

Cant help but laugh at this ufo geek's take on Rev Funes 'Aliens are my brother'

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0508/shiva.html


"The entities out there are fallen angels, demonic creations bent upon our destruction. With all due respect to Rev. Funes, these fallen angels masquerading as extraterrestrials are not my brothers but are instead henchman of Satan himself bent upon deceiving us as to the upcoming plans of the Lord Jesus Christ."

kelly1

Akrasia wrote: »

There is nobody in the world that has 'all the answers' because practically every christian interprets things differently.
That was my point. There is absolutely no consensus on what is necessary for salvation. It used to be that you could buy salvation by donating money and land to the church, it used to be (not very long ago) that un-baptized babies could not be buried on consecrated ground. There is no agreement on whether god saves good people who never heard the gospel and thus never got a chance to be saved. There is no agreement on whether or not it is a requirement to observe the sacraments, or whether private faith is adequate.
There are countless other disagreements that I couldn't be bothered going in to right now

Akrasia, let me put you straight on a few points:

- We are saved by grace. Without grace, we are damned. That is a fact.
- Salvation could never be bought. Indulgences could be bought (read up on Purgatory/Indulgences)
- Nobody knows who is saved because nobody knows the state of our souls when we die. We can make assumptions about salvtion for Christians but nobody knows the fate of the unbaptized. It's not wise to put limits on God's mercy.

Regards,
Noel.

Nerin

kelly1 wrote: »

Akrasia, let me put you straight on a few points:

- We are saved by grace. Without grace, we are damned. That is a fact.
- Salvation could never be bought. Indulgences could be bought (read up on Purgatory/Indulgences)
- Nobody knows who is saved because nobody knows the state of our souls when we die. We can make assumptions about salvtion for Christians but nobody knows the fate of the unbaptized. It's not wise to put limits on God's mercy.

Regards,
Noel.

none of us have facts on religious matters, we have beliefs.
anyway, wheres all the talk of aliens gone. its turning into one of those rambling thingys

Biro

Akrasia wrote: »

There is nobody in the world that has 'all the answers' because practically every christian interprets things differently.
That was my point. There is absolutely no consensus on what is necessary for salvation. It used to be that you could buy salvation by donating money and land to the church, it used to be (not very long ago) that un-baptized babies could not be buried on consecrated ground. There is no agreement on whether god saves good people who never heard the gospel and thus never got a chance to be saved. There is no agreement on whether or not it is a requirement to observe the sacraments, or whether private faith is adequate.
There are countless other disagreements that I couldn't be bothered going in to right now

If you focus on the little disagreements, then you'll never be happy. It's like anything. I do see where you're coming from, but if you focus on the failings of the church in the past then you're missing the point. If there are failings now, you can always try to do something about it. If you don't subscribe to any religion, then it shouldn't bother you. There'll always be some area where one might not be sure how it sits with them, but doing your best and not harming or judging others is all we can do. I think that if you focus too much on what's wrong with things then you'll end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Biro

Nerin wrote: »

none of us have facts on religious matters, we have beliefs.
anyway, wheres all the talk of aliens gone. its turning into one of those rambling thingys

It's true. No sense in moving this thread in the same direction as the 10,000 post one!
I think it has served it's purpose, if moderators want to close it.

Nerin

Biro wrote: »

It's true. No sense in moving this thread in the same direction as the 10,000 post one!
I think it has served it's purpose, if moderators want to close it.

i wouldnt say that. there was more talk of other things than aliens to be fair

PDN

This moderator has no wish to close it.

When a thread has run its course, it tends to slip down the board due to a lack of recent posts. So long as posters are willing to keep on rambling then let the fun continue.

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well I believe it is pretty well accepted that the Bible has been changed over the years.

Examples include:

- the story of Jesus saving the adultress ("Let he without sin cast the first stone") not being found in any of the earliest or best copies of the Gospel of John and is almost certainly a later creation by a Christian scribe.

- the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark ending with no one ever seeing the risen Jesus, the endings we have today again being later additions.

- the famous John 3:3 conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus where Jesus claims that we must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This conversation could not have happened as it hinges on a double entendre for "born again" which is only found in Greek and cannot be replicated in Aramaic. The Greek speaking author of John slipped up when he invented this story.

- there is no explicit mention of the trinity in any Greek copy of 1 John 5 ("There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit").

There are plenty more examples of the Bible being unreliable and having been changed by Christians over the first few hundred years of the religion. There are hundreds of thousands of variations between all of our copies of the Gospels, most insignificant but some very important. I mean to say that it has not been corrupted is a hard position to take when you don't actually have the original copies of the Gospels to know what the uncorrupted versions were.

To say that the Bible has not been corrupted, I'm afraid, just does not stand up to the facts.

My apologies. I took you to be referring to the supposed exclusion of the gnostic gospels, etc.

Yes, it is undisputed that the copies that were made of the Biblical books have various errors. The task for the Church has been to collate from the many thousands of ancient copies the consensus. Even with variations, like those you listed, no doctrine is introduced or overtrhown. We have the message God intended us to have.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

My apologies. I took you to be referring to the supposed exclusion of the gnostic gospels, etc.

Yes, it is undisputed that the copies that were made of the Biblical books have various errors. The task for the Church has been to collate from the many thousands of ancient copies the consensus. Even with variations, like those you listed, no doctrine is introduced or overtrhown. We have the message God intended us to have.

What if the message said god doesn't exist?

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

We have the message God intended us to have.

Not quite -- we have the message that the authors and their later editors created.

That may or may not be the "message god intended us to have".

Latchy

Vatican says aliens could exist

One day the headlines might read '' vatican has proof of gods existince ''

That would be more, if not just as intresting

Ekancone

latchyco wrote: »

Vatican says aliens could exist

One day the headlines might read '' vatican has proof of gods existince ''

That would be more, if not just as intresting

But he may also not be free of original sin...

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

Not quite -- we have the message that the authors and their later editors created.

That may or may not be the "message god intended us to have".

No, you see. God wanted it that way.

MrPudding

Biro wrote: »

If you focus on the little disagreements,

Little disagreements? I would not call whether or not millions of people who, by fluke of geography, have never had a chance to take God into their heart roast in hell for eternity, a "little" anything. Similarly, I would not think that whether or not your newly born child who had the gall to die before being baptised was going to heaven or roasting in hell would be a "little" thing for the parents.

These arguments may seem small an insignificant to you, but to atheists, well at least in my case, they are yet more reasons for me to feel the way I do about god and religion.

MrP

all the stars

whether God exists or not isn't really important.

People believe he does, so to them he is very real.

People believe he doesn't and are perfectly entitled to feel that way.

I lean way more to paganism than christianity, and i dont believe in Hell or Satan or any eveil entity.
People create that evil. To name it is to give it power.

I wont believe in something just coz im told to be scared for my soul if i don't.

Equally, others do operate that way and are scared into believing in God for fear of what may happen if they don't. (not everyone - but it is the case with one or two people i know)
Others are completely devoted and will fight about it till the cows return home & out to pasture again.

So realistically, God & aliens may well both exist. Will it change your life? Nope coz i dont imagine either shall appear in the clouds announcing themselves just to prove us all right/wrong respectively.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

Similarly, I would not think that whether or not your newly born child who had the gall to die before being baptised was going to heaven or roasting in hell would be a "little" thing for the parents.

Unbaptised children roasting in hell? Can you tell me any religion in the last 800 years that has taught such a thing?

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

Little disagreements? I would not call whether or not millions of people who, by fluke of geography, have never had a chance to take God into their heart roast in hell for eternity, a "little" anything. Similarly, I would not think that whether or not your newly born child who had the gall to die before being baptised was going to heaven or roasting in hell would be a "little" thing for the parents.

These arguments may seem small an insignificant to you, but to atheists, well at least in my case, they are yet more reasons for me to feel the way I do about god and religion.

MrP

Wild accusations there, not little disagreements. If you think I'm wrong, arrange a meeting with the Pope, I'll show up, and he'll agree with me, not you. So you're picking random items like that, saying that Christians disagree on those points, and because of that you're rejecting that God may exist?
Isn't that a little narrow minded? Or a lot narrow minded? Whether or not Christians agree doesn't add to any arguement about the existance of God.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

Unbaptised children roasting in hell? Can you tell me any religion in the last 800 years that has taught such a thing?

I don't have the time right now to answer this fully, but I will try later. If you look though the various threads on faith and hell you will find various references, discussions and opinions on whether or not the persons in the two examples I gave will go to hell or not.


Did god change something in the last 800 years to save the unbaptised children?

Biro wrote: »

Wild accusations there, not little disagreements. If you think I'm wrong, arrange a meeting with the Pope, I'll show up, and he'll agree with me, not you. So you're picking random items like that, saying that Christians disagree on those points, and because of that you're rejecting that God may exist?
Isn't that a little narrow minded? Or a lot narrow minded? Whether or not Christians agree doesn't add to any arguement about the existance of God.

A meeting with the pope? Yeah, that is really high on my agenda of things to do.

Narrow minded? Are you having a laugh? These are a couple of reason why I think religion is a load of balls. It also makes me think that if there was a god it is not an entity I would want anything to do with as its followers don't seems to have a clue what it wants and each thinks the other is damned. I also think he come across and petty, vindictive and generally quite objectionable.

As for my disbelief of your god, that is due to looking at the facts and the evidence and realising there is absolutely no reason to believe in this god. i get on with my life trying to harm as few people as possible. Petty squabbles between different sects of religion over who burns or not has little to do with my disbelief, though it does make me happy I have no part in it.

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't have the time right now to answer this fully, but I will try later. If you look though the various threads on faith and hell you will find various references, discussions and opinions on whether or not the persons in the two examples I gave will go to hell or not.


Did god change something in the last 800 years to save the unbaptised children?

God didn't need to change anything because God, or the Bible, never made any statements about unbaptised children to start off with.

The Roman Catholic Church, from about the 6th Century to the 13th Century taught that unbaptised children went to hell. While a historical curiosity, that is no reason to hold any belief, or reject any belief, today.

Biro

MrPudding wrote: »

A meeting with the pope? Yeah, that is really high on my agenda of things to do.

Sometimes it's necessary to fight one extreme idea with another.
Anyway, if you're so busy, how come you're on a Christian forum belittling me or anyone else on here?

MrPudding wrote: »

Narrow minded? Are you having a laugh? These are a couple of reason why I think religion is a load of balls. It also makes me think that if there was a god it is not an entity I would want anything to do with as its followers don't seems to have a clue what it wants and each thinks the other is damned. I also think he come across and petty, vindictive and generally quite objectionable.

As for my disbelief of your god, that is due to looking at the facts and the evidence and realising there is absolutely no reason to believe in this god. i get on with my life trying to harm as few people as possible. Petty squabbles between different sects of religion over who burns or not has little to do with my disbelief, though it does make me happy I have no part in it.

I'm not having a laugh. I'm not suggesting that you don't have good reasons not to believe, you possibly do. I am saying however that looking at human disagreements and using them to assume that that must mean there is no God is narrow minded. Of all the reasons to assume that God doesn't exist, the reason that people disagree on religious topics certainly isn't a viable one. You can disagree with various religions all you like, but as someone posted in some other thread in the last day or so, God exists outside religion (given the assumption that indeed He does exist).

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Unbaptised children roasting in hell? Can you tell me any religion in the last 800 years that has taught such a thing?

From the wikipedia article on Original Sin:

However, given Augustine's belief that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell, he concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell because of original sin. The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages. In the later mediaeval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants". The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".

Augustine concluded that unbabtized children go to hell, for unbabtized kids, they only hoped that they could be saved and then, in 1300, Limbo was invented to make people happy about what happens to unbabtized children. However Limbo is still only a "possible theological hypothesis", technically all unbabtised souls go to hell, but its hoped that God is nice enough to give the babies a break.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

Unbaptised children roasting in hell? Can you tell me any religion in the last 800 years that has taught such a thing?

I can at name at least one that used to bury them in unmarked graves up until fairly recently

Latchy

daithifleming wrote: »

But he may also not be free of original sin...

That could be investigated after he steps foreward

marco_polo wrote: »

I can at name at least one that used to bury them in unmarked graves up until fairly recently

A good enough reason for anybody to turn away from that religion

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Augustine concluded that unbabtized children go to hell, for unbabtized kids, they only hoped that they could be saved and then, in 1300, Limbo was invented to make people happy about what happens to unbabtized children.

I am well aware of what Augustine taught. Much, but not all, of it was nonsense. It was for that reason that I mentioned the last 800 years, hoping that we could discuss more contemporary beliefs.

Your assertion that 'technically' all unbaptised children go to hell under Catholic teaching is just plain wrong. It would be more correct to say that they don't know.

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

I can at name at least one that used to bury them in unmarked graves up until fairly recently

So can I, but that is a very different proposition from saying that they roast in hell.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

So can I, but that is a very different proposition from saying that they roast in hell.

Maybe so, but I just don't consider that the CC "hoping" unbaptised children can gain eternal salvation is a good enough answer.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/20/limbo-in-limbo.html?ref=rss

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

I am well aware of what Augustine taught. Much, but not all, of it was nonsense. It was for that reason that I mentioned the last 800 years, hoping that we could discuss more contemporary beliefs.

Strange then that he is a saint, and according to wikipedia: "Augustine, a Latin Father and Doctor of the Church, is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity." If he was mostly nonsense then I 'd imagine he wouldn't be considered that important, at least not important enough to still be a saint.

PDN wrote: »

Your assertion that 'technically' all unbaptised children go to hell under Catholic teaching is just plain wrong. It would be more correct to say that they don't know.

No it is not. The church know that you have to be forgiven of you sins to get into heaven, and that to be forgiven of original sin you must be babtised. By their own logic this means unbabtised babies go to hell, but that would be bad for business so they claim that they don't know what happens to them.

Biro

Mark Hamill wrote: »

...to be forgiven of original sin you must be babtised.

Where does it say that that is the ONLY way to be free'd from original sin?

Mark Hamill

Biro wrote: »

Where does it say that that is the ONLY way to be free'd from original sin?

From Wikipedia:

The Church has always held baptism to be "for the remission of sins", and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being human beings.

and

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,'[11] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

So we see that babtism is expressedly for the forgiveness of Original Sin, the Churches alternative is to hope that Kids will be saved because Jesus at one point in scriptures says "Let the children come to me". No other forgiveness (on the human side of life) is possible as you have you to ask for other forms of forgiveness.

Biro

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From Wikipedia:

Oh dear.

rockbeer

Biro wrote: »

Oh dear.

Do you prefer the Encyclopedia Britannica?

(Baptism) is the total annulment of the sins of one's past and the emergence of a totally innocent person.

Why would you baptize a child if they had no sins to be 'annuled'? Especially as:

Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:

The liturgy and the instructions clearly understand the acceptance of baptism as an independent adult decision; without this decision the sacrament cannot be received

By what other method do you 'annul' a child's original sin?

(I take it you don't dispute Mark's direct quote from the 1261 Catechism.)

MrPudding

Biro wrote: »

I'm not having a laugh. I'm not suggesting that you don't have good reasons not to believe, you possibly do.

I feel I have excellent reason not to believe. The main one being there is no reason to believe.

Biro wrote: »

I am saying however that looking at human disagreements and using them to assume that that must mean there is no God is narrow minded.

Yes, it possibly might be. Luckily for me the human disagreement are why I think human invented religion is at best not for me, and at worst a despicable tool to take advantage of people. That said, I am very happy for the people, my mother for example, that ti provides comfort for. The human disagreements do, however cause me to question the "personality" of a god, if it did exist, not as evidence that it doesn't.

Biro wrote: »

Of all the reasons to assume that God doesn't exist, the reason that people disagree on religious topics certainly isn't a viable one. You can disagree with various religions all you like, but as someone posted in some other thread in the last day or so, God exists outside religion (given the assumption that indeed He does exist).

I do not believe in god because there is no reason to believe in god. There is no evidence or proof and I have not found a single convincing argument in its favour.

MrP

Mark Hamill

Biro wrote: »

Oh dear.

Why did you say that? If you have a problem with the accuracy of something from wikipedia then fine, I wouldn't encourage anyone to take any information source as being completely infallible, be it internet, news media or textbook based. But why, instead of actually pointing to something that shows me that I'm wrong, do you spend the time to log in, quote my post, edit it to emphasize "from wikipedia" and say "oh dear"?
It looks like you are saying "Oh dear, he has just quoted from an easily accessable internet resource that directly quotes a Cathecism of the Catholic Church, I'm buggered now"

If you prefer, here's the link to the actual Cathecism, where it says:
[QUOTE=CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH]The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[/QUOTE]

6th

When did this stop being about the aliuns?

Latchy

Ailuns ? ......this thread is about aliuns ?

Ahhhhhhhhhhh everybody run .........the ailuns are here :eek:

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

What if the message said god doesn't exist?

Hmm, let's see. God says, "I don't exist". That would make it an hallucination, then. Of course, the hallucinatory God would exist, so it would not have been referring to itself, but to our mistaken understanding of it as a real God. I for one would then happily bin the book, since it has made itself redundant.

Thankfully, we don't have to go down this navel-gazing road. The Bible clearly states that God does exist. It also tells us about our relationship to Him, our need of reconciliation and how God accomplishes that. Crucial stuff, so I treasure the Bible as God's message to me.:):):)

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Not quite -- we have the message that the authors and their later editors created.

That may or may not be the "message god intended us to have".

If that were so, I would not give the Bible house-room. But I know it not to be the case.

God has shone His light in my heart by His Holy Spirit, and caused me to recognise the truth of His word. I have heard the Shepherd's voice, and followed Him.

Have you read His word with unbiased mind, seeking to see if He is real?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm, let's see. God says, "I don't exist". That would make it an hallucination, then. Of course, the hallucinatory God would exist, so it would not have been referring to itself, but to our mistaken understanding of it as a real God. I for one would then happily bin the book, since it has made itself redundant.

Thankfully, we don't have to go down this navel-gazing road. The Bible clearly states that God does exist. It also tells us about our relationship to Him, our need of reconciliation and how God accomplishes that. Crucial stuff, so I treasure the Bible as God's message to me.:):):)

Good for you.