Page 5 of 14

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 22:54 23 Sep 2014
by Quinny
No, Verte just needs to understand that Catholism was dragged into being a semi-modern religion with Vatican II Council: the Catholic Church recognises and embraces other Christian religions, and I'm saying this as an atheist who was brought up as a Catholic ... and taught by Christian Brothers ... and studied theology as part of my degree (albeit many years ago now) and ... I can categorically state that we were never taught that non-Catholics were denied entry to Heaven.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 07:56 24 Sep 2014
by Verte
Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

bullet Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." 2

The last sentence in the original Latin reads: "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." 3

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:
"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Quinny is correct by the way. I should have honed my argument better :)

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 08:03 24 Sep 2014
by Verte

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 10:23 24 Sep 2014
by t._green
Thanks Verte
Here's one for you, and everyone else who thinks religion is a fantasy incompatible with science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2rklwkm_dQ

Enjoy

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 14:07 24 Sep 2014
by Verte
Rob Bell. Noooooooo........ just no. Give me someone to watch who is credible please. I find that he never answers any questions directly and that his take on the Scriptures is skewed. Look up his annihilation at the hands of Martin Bashir.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 14:11 24 Sep 2014
by Greenrod
Verte wrote: Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

bullet Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered "one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages..." 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed....Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." 2

The last sentence in the original Latin reads: "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." 3

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:
"It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Quinny is correct by the way. I should have honed my argument better :)


.....and the earth was flat in those days.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 16:08 24 Sep 2014
by Verte
Flat?? Really? I like that idea.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 16:12 24 Sep 2014
by GreenSam
Richard Dawkins thinks that all downs syndrome babies should be aborted before birth as well as claiming that Muslims are stupid because not enough of them have won nobel prizes and also that women shouldn't report rape if it occurred whilst they were drunk.

He's got about as much to do with the moderate and well-intentioned face of atheism as ISIS have to do with Islam, the Westborough Baptist Church have to do with Christianity or that Israeli occupying settlers have to do with Judaism. The man is a piece of work.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 16:36 24 Sep 2014
by t._green
Verte wrote: Rob Bell. Noooooooo........ just no. Give me someone to watch who is credible please. I find that he never answers any questions directly and that his take on the Scriptures is skewed. Look up his annihilation at the hands of Martin Bashir.


I've watched that interview and I would suggest annihilation is quite an exaggeration. As I understand it, Bell's theological position is an extension of Armenian theology and he is right to bring these questions, and it is important for us to discuss them—that's the point of theology. Yes, response to Jesus is the foundation as it always has been, but Bell here is addressing all those that fall through the theological cracks, those who have not heard the Gospel, or have been turned away by the corruption in this world:—maybe the child who became disillusioned with faith because those trusted with his spiritual care instead abused it, or the believer who lost his faith because of suffering and couldn't understand why God seemed silent, or any other reason or cause that may be the product of a broken world, even the person who receives a brain injury or dementia that robes him of his once keen mind. Therefore, I'm with Bell in saying Christ's redemptive sacrifice has to cover the full weight of corruption, otherwise it is only a partial redemption and we know it's God's will that all should be saved—even if that is held in tension between God's will and our response.

1 Corinthians 15:22 says For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. There is a choice we have to make, surely, but also I believe God's mercy covers our deficiencies and inabilities

I suppose a lot of this comes down to how you view God. Many atheists would subscribe to a view that if he exists at all God is arbitrary, Fickle, or even cruel. How can a God of love send people to Hell for eternity just for not believing in him? But it is more, we are all stained by the wrongs we do each other, which is called sin. Incidentally, eternal torment has more to do with Egyptian religion than Jewish thought.

Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Sin leads to death but Christ has paid the price for all of it

On the Cross, Jesus said after all that had been done to Him, 'Father forgive them for they do not know what they are doing'. He also said to the robber who recognised his innocence, 'today you will be with me in paradise'. In the end everything is down to God's mercy and His generosity in the end and it's my hope that by posting the link that I did, that people, even if it is just one, will understand in a fresh way, a new way, that God is for us and not against us. That you don't have to file your intelligence away in a drawer to believe in a creator and you don't have to face a future of fear and darkness, because there is something very much better.

Rob Bell shows this better than practically anyone today, I heartily recommend the clip I posted, heck, I recommend all his videos and even if you don't agree with him, they are still worth watching.

There, I've done what I should, that's all I can do.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 18:17 24 Sep 2014
by Verte
GreenSam wrote: Richard Dawkins thinks that all downs syndrome babies should be aborted before birth as well as claiming that Muslims are stupid because not enough of them have won nobel prizes and also that women shouldn't report rape if it occurred whilst they were drunk.

He's got about as much to do with the moderate and well-intentioned face of atheism as ISIS have to do with Islam, the Westborough Baptist Church have to do with Christianity or that Israeli occupying settlers have to do with Judaism. The man is a piece of work.


I have never said he is moderate. The guy is very clever and sometimes too smart for his own good. But on the whole I concur with his views - they resonate with me. I have never seen/heard the comments you mention and I will look them up and let you know what I think of them.

I am enjoying this debate with you guys - its very robust yet polite and heres the kicker - on a football forum :)

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 18:29 24 Sep 2014
by Verte
OK - Dawkins on Downs Syndrome - if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare…

I see his point but I think its poorly put across and allows for ambiguity. The rape comments he made are a typical conservative response. I cannot agree with him on that at all.
As for Muslims and Nobel prizes -
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though. That is crass - I mean why compare Muslims to Trinity? Why not Mormons? Or Jews? I think he was on the Port that night when he tweeted that.

Anyway I still agree with 90% of his views. I just wanted to show I am not blindly following my belief and its main champion after the allegations brought to light by Greensam.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 20:37 24 Sep 2014
by GreenSam
Fair play, Verte.

Re: ISIS - how does the world respond??

Posted: 23:21 24 Sep 2014
by Ave_IT
Verte wrote: OK - Dawkins on Downs Syndrome - if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare…

I see his point but I think its poorly put across and allows for ambiguity. The rape comments he made are a typical conservative response. I cannot agree with him on that at all.
As for Muslims and Nobel prizes -
All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though. That is crass - I mean why compare Muslims to Trinity? Why not Mormons? Or Jews? I think he was on the Port that night when he tweeted that.

Anyway I still agree with 90% of his views. I just wanted to show I am not blindly following my belief and its main champion after the allegations brought to light by Greensam.

Completely agree.

Going off topic a bit but since Dawkins bashing has occurred I think it's fair to add that before he became the champion of belligerent atheism he was and still is an extraordinary scientist with a brilliant knack of communicating scientific ideas to the layman.

The book that made his name "the selfish gene" (released 1976) is a great read and is virtually an "origin of the species" part 2, to include genetics, microbiology etc. etc. that Darwin never knew about. It's jaw-dropingly brilliant and actually is quite heartening in that it explains the origins of altruism and some fantastic stuff to do with 'game theory' and population dynamics to show how and why co-operation is (often) a more successful strategy for survival than selfishness. It's not as bleak as the title suggests - quite the opposite although he does veer off into what he admits as speculative stuff about 'memes' to explain cultural differences but fascinating nonetheless.

The best thing though about Dawkins is some of his wonderful imagery to explain concepts. This is a great example (that gives me goose-bumps) to give a grasp of the history of life on Earth........

"Fling your arms wide in an expansive gesture to span all of evolution from its origin at your left fingertip to today at your right fingertip. All across your midline to well past your right shoulder, life consists of nothing but bacteria.

Many celled invertebrate life flowers somewhere around your right elbow. The dinosaurs originate in the middle of your right palm, and go extinct around your last finger joint. The whole history of Homo sapiens and our predecessor Homo erectus is contained in the thickness of one nail clipping.

As for recorded history; as for the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Jewish patriarchs, the dynasties of Pharaohs, the legions of Rome, the Christian Fathers, the Laws of the Medes and Persians which never change; as for Troy and the Greeks, Helen and Achilles and Agamemnon dead; as for Napoleon and Hitler, the Beatles and Bill Clinton, they and everyone that knew them are blown away in the dust of one light stroke of a nail file.
"