NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:29 pm**

Jackonia wrote:Nowhere.

Then you're not an unusual Catholic - you aren't one.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:31 pm**

I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:32 pm**

Securitan wrote:
Benuty wrote:Funny, because the same source says Aristotle's views influenced them far more.

In this source it says Islam was interlaced with the slave trade.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ ... mic_Arabia

Hmm..it seems we've reached the impasse of "they did it before they become monotheistic". Which of-course could be applied to the Hebrews (they were lower class Canaanites who rebelled from the oppressive city states, and proceeded to conquer their former oppressors).

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:33 pm**

Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

So you worship the laws of gravity and nuclear fusion in Mass? No, you worship a specific God with attributes given to it by humans in the Catholic Church.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:36 pm**

Benuty wrote:
Securitan wrote:In this source it says Islam was interlaced with the slave trade.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ ... mic_Arabia

Hmm..it seems we've reached the impasse of "they did it before they become monotheistic". Which of-course could be applied to the Hebrews (they were lower class Canaanites who rebelled from the oppressive city states, and proceeded to conquer their former oppressors).

I think I have found a solution. Bastards will enslave people no matter what. They'll use whatever justification available to explain to non-bastards what they do is right. They just can't do it nowadays (in some places) because non-bastards aren't buying their rhetoric anymore.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:20 pm**

Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

... That's not how catholicism works.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:22 pm**

Lost heros wrote:
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

... That's not how catholicism works.

Yep, you need a certified document that says you confirmed your faith in Catholicism and the Catechism to be considered an actual Catholic and to be privy to their rituals - becoming a priest, getting a Catholic wedding, etc.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:42 pm**

Lost heros wrote:
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

... That's not how catholicism works.

Well given there are Catholics who believe there hasn't been a legitimate pope since the 1950s, it hardly could be that bad off.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:49 pm**

Lost heros wrote:
Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

... That's not how catholicism works.

I've met Christians who don't even believe Jesus was divine, so when it comes to religion, literally anything goes. You can disregard everything your religion says (Jews that eat pork, Muslims that don't pray 5 times a day, Christians that don't read the Bible) and still be part of your religion, apparently.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:51 pm**

Highfort wrote:
Lost heros wrote:... That's not how catholicism works.

I've met Christians who don't even believe Jesus was divine, so when it comes to religion, literally anything goes. You can disregard everything your religion says (Jews that eat pork, Muslims that don't pray 5 times a day, Christians that don't read the Bible) and still be part of your religion, apparently.

Well, in reality you are just creating a different sect that includes only yourself. For the sake of simplicity however, let's just say that what you said is true.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:54 pm**

Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

Worshipping God in Mass is not the only thing that constitutes Roman Catholicism, by the way. As a former Catholic (some would say "lapsed" Catholic, as if I have some desire to return to the faith), I can tell you right now that you have as much in common with Roman Catholicism as Protestants do. That is, you go to a church in Sundays. That's literally all you have in common with actual Roman Catholics.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:55 pm**

Religion is just grown ups having a imaginary friend.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:27 pm**

Jackonia wrote:Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Lolnope.
If you don't follow the Nicene Creed and the Catholic dogmas, you're not a Catholic, end of the story.

Do you believe that the substance (hypostasis) of bread and wine is actually turned into the flesh and the body of Christ during the Eucharist?
Yes => you could be a Catholic, pending further investigation.
No => you can't be a Catholic.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:28 pm**

Highfort wrote:
Lost heros wrote:... That's not how catholicism works.

I've met Christians who don't even believe Jesus was divine,

So have I. They were called Arians.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2015 6:30 pm**

Havenburgh wrote:Religion is just grown ups having a imaginary friend.

Calpurnpiso is that you?

In reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:12 am**

Jackonia wrote:I'm a Catholic, I just don't agree with most of their teachings. I do like the whole idea of Worshipping God in Mass etc. Just because I don't agree with most of the Roman Catholic Teachings, doesn't mean I'm not a Roman Catholic. I can choose to be one or not.

No, what you describe pretty much makes you a protestant. Or, depending which parts exactly you do not believe, maybe even a nonchristian.

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:09 pm**

Securitan wrote:
Creepoc Infinite wrote:I am the only one around here who finds scientific evidence to be the only definitive evidence that could convince me of god existing?

Logical reasoning is also a lot of fun, but when it comes down to the evidence that matters, that is scientific evidence. People who argue for the existence of god like Ray Comfort, Dinesh D'souza, William Lane Craig and many others don't use science they play semantics games and use fallacious arguments and are dishonest in their reasoning.

Why is it that these people think they are right but they have to lie and use petty tactics to get people on their side. If they are right, why don't they just present the evidence and explain how it points to god?

Scientists do this, atheists do this as well, but apologetics don't.
If they are right, why do they have to be disingenuous to get their point across.

A good example of only using reasoning to prove a God is the ontological argument.

Which was rejected by Thomas Aquinas on the grounds that humans can't truly comprehend God. If humans can't comprehend God, then there's a step missing; if they can fully understand God, then you run into Vinge's Law.

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:12 pm**

The Foxes Swamp wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:And the Big Bang uses the word theory as sciences uses the word theory.

So what are you talking about?

forget what i said i could be wrong..prove the big bang theory to me please ?

To understand the big bang you would need a lot of background information, which in turn needs a lot of background information. It is a rather complex topics that cannot be explained easily.

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:15 pm**

Creepoc Infinite wrote:I am an Atheist who is strongly against religion.
And I have been studying religion. The reason I'm atheist is because that I was once Christian,l but I never went to church or read the bible. It was a really casual thing.
One day, something traumatic happened to me and I started to go to church and so on in order to reconnect with god.
However, the more I learned about the religions roots and the more I read the bible, the more disenfranchised by Christianity I was.

I was really miserable for a long time, until I found about that atheism existed, when I did, it offered me an opportunity to see the world as I had originally seen it. Because I'm an atheist, I have become more open to new information and have learned a lot about science and philosophy and history.

I have realized that religion is one of the worst problems, if not THE worst, facing modern society.
And so I want to know what everyone's thoughts are on the issue.

I am also interested in being convinced of god's existence if he does, I doubt it, but, more recently, I'm more open to the idea. So if you want to convince me, contact me personally or on this thread

I belive God exists but, I am not the one who is going to cram his existance or belif of him down your throat. I will not even condemn you for not beliving in him. I mind my own business and move on with my life.

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:00 pm**

Neutraligon wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:

forget what i said i could be wrong..prove the big bang theory to me please ?

To understand the big bang you would need a lot of background information, which in turn needs a lot of background information. It is a rather complex topics that cannot be explained easily.

All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:03 pm**

The Land of Eternal Prosperity wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
To understand the big bang you would need a lot of background information, which in turn needs a lot of background information. It is a rather complex topics that cannot be explained easily.

All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?

More to it then that, what you just said is a very simplistic explanation.

Posted: **Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:41 pm**

Shaggai wrote:
Securitan wrote:A good example of only using reasoning to prove a God is the ontological argument.

Which was rejected by Thomas Aquinas on the grounds that humans can't truly comprehend God. If humans can't comprehend God, then there's a step missing; if they can fully understand God, then you run into Vinge's Law.

You don't understand what I meant. I think the ontological argument is absurd, but it is an example of an argument that tries to prove a deity exists using only logic.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:01 am**

The Land of Eternal Prosperity wrote:All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?

Technically that's a description, not proof. Proof of the big bang theory involves a lot of fine instruments to measure background radiation and stuff, and fancy mathematics to model it all.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 am**

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
The Land of Eternal Prosperity wrote:All energy and elementary particles were at one point and expanded outward, creating atoms that formed into heavenly bodies?

Technically that's a description, not proof. Proof of the big bang theory involves a lot of fine instruments to measure background radiation and stuff, and fancy mathematics to model it all.

Technically that is not proof, technically that is evidence.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:02 am**

I was providing an easy explanation.

NationStates

Does God Exist?