Hello everyone

You won't accept the evidence I have, you just dismiss it all based on your own bias, even though much of it comes from ex-Catholics who left the RCC because of what they found out about it. How about some evidence from Catholics who stayed Catholics then. You'll have to read the books yourself, I'm not going to wear myself out digging it up for you only to get the usual slap in the face for my efforts. Try Malachi Martin, The Jesuits; Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, the Dark Side of the Papacy; John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope, Hans Kung (Kung is a theologian critical of the RCC but I haven't read him). I know well enough that even with Catholic sources you are likely to just dismiss them too, that's how this game is played. But if you are willing to face the truth you should recognize that there's so much testimony against the Popes from many sides that defending them gets pretty thin. I wish you good reading.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Todays Protestants are not responsible for the sins of their Great Grandfathers and Grandfathers. I dont see where it is even Biblical to take on the yoke of sin for people long since deceased. People who are alive now is another matter.Its like slavery. Yes it was very wrong. Yes, we have learned from the past mistakes of our forefathers and yes we realize that we humans still have an inner nature that if left unchecked can be very ugly. We are responsible for ourselves but not for life and circumstance before our birth.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

quote:

---

He said that you shouldn't present as dogma what science has shown to be wrong. Real basic stuff like "god exists" is open game.

---

True, but it's just posturing unless one admits that their belief system *may* not be true. Unfortunately, such an admission just isn't compatible with religion because by its own nature it is clinging on to beliefs at face value regardless of evidence. People don't fly into buildings doubting that a bunch of virgins are waiting for them on the other side in paradise.

quote:

---

Like what? That resurrections don't happen? Or that a resurrection could never happen?

---

Like: it *might* all be a lie.

quote:

---

Except that my belief is not based on faith alone. I've landed at the position that god exists, I'm not pushing myself into it.

---

Okay, so that means there must be some kind of evidence that you've "landed on" for believing such a thing. Mind sharing some of this evidence? You know, like, in the same way you'd be willing to show me evidence for gravity or evolution if I asked you for it.

quote:

---

You think science is going to shown those to be false? How?

---

It could show it to be unnecessary -- in the same way we don't need Zeus to explain lightning, Thor to explain thunder or storm gods to explain weather patterns. The problem with a religion is that it already takes itself for granted.

quote:

---

Okay, how's that working for you? Any conviction there?

---

Let's say that were a real "conviction", it doesn't make it compelling based on evidence. It's just a bunch of emotional want...desire.

quote:

---

Sure, but that's not something that science is going to show to be false. And who doesn't!?

---

Science may show it to be completely unnecessary and superfluous -- although there never is such a thing as falsifiability for any kind of superstition or myth.

quote:

---

No, intellectually honest and intellectually integritous and not for reasons for feeling better. Do you doubt the possibility?

---

yes, I doubt the possibility. I can't say for sure though. As in, I can't say for sure that the spaghetti monster isn't out there either.

quote:

---

Believe in whatever the hell you want. IDGAF. And no, doing it just to make you feel better is not being honest.

---

You're totally missing my point here. I can choose to believe in a flat earth if I want but how is that facing up to reality? It isn't...it would be a belief based on want, not on observable reality.

quote:

---

I don't think rationality is the default position. Humans are wrought with irrationality, its kept us alive as a species (its better to imagine that noise in the bush was a monster that will hurt you than to take the rational position and wait for further evidence).

​

It takes training to discard your irrationality. As your OP admits you've learned

---

In terms of evaluating reality, the should-be default position, is to not believe something as potentially valid unless there's unbiased evidence indicating that it is.

quote:

---

Well, give it time. Maybe one day you'll find yourself believing in God again.

​

Maybe you won't. *shrugs*

---

And maybe one day you'll find yourself believing in the Spaghetti monster! I actually don't mind the idea of believing in God again, but I'm waiting for some evidence first. Mind helping out a poor ignorant soul like me?Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

In reply to everything you said, without addressing every detail. I do not believe I was being honest with myself before, because I was not acknowledging the fact that I actually didn't know for sure -- everyone who clings on to a belief system that has no evidence are wanting to believe they have good reason to believe what it is they want to believe, but if they really ask themselves "do I really know", they will find the answer and that answer is that they don't.I always knew for sure in the back of my mind that I didn't really know for sure, I just didn't want to admit it because I wanted it to be true. Now that I am not in a position where I believe in something just because I want to, it really makes a difference in how I look at things.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I completely disagree. Furthermore, the way in which it happened was completely different. While it is true and no less egregious that protestants participated in a lot of genocide, it was not a centralized entity organization that needs to apologize. The Catholic Church was a singular powerhouse persecution force headed by successive Popes and Cardinals who went on a mission of systematically killing any heretics by any torture necessary.

So the fact that the Protestants could not get themselves organized as well as the Roman Catholics is their excuse?Oh good grief.I thought you wanted to work towards personal honesty.

I appreciate your insight into my situation and while I admittedly am newer in this "I don't know business" than you, I wanted to re-address the religion issue.While it is true that many religions make what some might say is "reasonable room" for science, it that still does not make them completely different from the fundamentalist religions. They are all the same except at varying degrees and extents.When someone says "I have accepted the Lord Jesus into my heart" they aren't going into that belief with an openness to the idea that such a thing might not actually be the case or that it may not be something real. That religious experience, no matter how small or big or interpreted has a feeling of REALITY to the individual no matter what science says to them. If science says something different, it must be wrong -- according to them.I maintain that at its core, religion, regardless of the degree or flexibility always possesses some core belief that it believes to be unshakable, and absolutely "true". If it was just embraced as a temporary idea with the concept of "I think this is a good explanation until it gets shown to be probably wrong" then it wouldn't be a religion by definition.Pointing out religions that accept evolution or even merely the belief that there is a God and that he created all the laws that govern science and saying that those can be FULLY compatible with science is still wrong. Why? Because what if it is shown scientifically that it is unnecessary to invoke God for any mystery of the universe in the same way that it is unnecessary to invoke God for lightning or the weather or rain?Religion will always hold out on some area (light or extreme) that science has to potential to obviate. So, in my opinion, they are still incompatible. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

The protestants happened in the first place because they were protesting the abuses of the Catholic Church. Of course, they ended up doing the very same thing -- but there's no singular entity with a lineage of Pope figures that they are claiming to be the vicars of Christ that act for God.The RCC has a history of not blaming particular historical church figures (namely, Popes) and admitting that specific acts in their past were wrong...BECAUSE it is tethered to their belief that ultimately the RCChurch itself can do no wrong, but it did. They would rather caste vague blame on "various individuals within the church". It's quite frankly, a cop-out.The Catholic Church will NEVER admit that a past Pope did "wrong" or "sinned",...and gee, I wonder why?You're more than encouraged to prove me wrong though!Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Nonsense.Protestantism evolved for may reasons and mostly over power, control and wealth. The supposed theological issues were almost all resolved quite peacefully at the Councils of Trent.The Roman Catholic church certainly has admitted that past popes did wrong and sinned. Popes have reversed the churches position on many things.But as an honest Protestant Christian I must admit that my Chapter of Club Christian broke from the Roman Catholic Church for no reasons that had anything to do with faith, beliefs or dogma and that Protestants have been every bit as genocidal as the RCC, particularly US Protestants and in fact we were far more successful then the RCC at genocide.

No, early protestantism emerged because of the fact that many of the common people wanted to read the Bible in their own language. The RCC tried in every way they could to prevent this through systematic persecution and torture (numbering in at least hundreds of thousands). Their purpose was to keep the lay people in ignorance so that they couldn't come up with their own biblical interpretations that ran contrary to church teaching -- it came down to control and money (for the RCC). It also arose out of perceived abuses such as buying your way into heaven.Later on in the game it became about power and control and wealth for Protestants as well but to paint a completely different picture and deny the history is pretty ridiculous.Oh and, on the "CC certainly has admitted that past popes did wrong and sinned", show me. Where? Show me the admission and I'll believe you. And it has to be fairly modern, not the medieval disputes where three different Popes were simultaneously casting anathemas against one another while calling themselves the "true Pope". Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I know there's no point in trying to persuade you but the Bible is THE source of evidence for everything having to do with God for a Protestant (a real Protestant, not jar's weird claim to be a Protestant but one who considers the Reformers great teachers and great men.) In short Sola Scriptura. I have no idea what evidence Catholic Scientist might happen to have for his beliefs but that's my evidence for mine, plus all my own personal experience of God's faithfulness to me since I first believed, answered prayer and so on.But I already know from the fact that you trust archaeology over the Bible that there's no hope of persuading you. You believed in God without real evidence and you gave up God without real evidence. Unless God has mercy on you and you get born again that's the end of the story for you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Stay classy, Faith. This is totally the correct response to someone's 'Hello' thread.Edited by ooh-child, : No reason given.

Oh, good. Then we are free of Adam and Eve's original sin. There was no "fall" after all. Puts my mind at ease. I was getting concerned.

Utter nonsense.Have you actually read anything of the history except the propaganda put out by the Christian Cult of Ignorance?There was never an abuse of buying you way into heaven, that is simply a lie put out by several of the early Protestant marketeers.Bible translations were happening regardless of opposition.The largest of the Protestant movements at the time was the Church of England and it broke away simply because a couple calendars could not be synced.Stop and think. You're still dealing with information from folk whose whole belief system is based on willful ignorance and dishonesty. Now that you have understood that they were lying about stuff that is really easy to check like the age of the earth and evolution, why would you expect them to be honest about anything else?Actually stop and read the 95 Treatise and you will see that Luther supported the Popes position. In addition, if you read the results of the Trent Councils you will find that the Roman Catholic Church agreed with almost every point and adopted almost every suggestion presented.Invest time in learning facts and not just propaganda.

And an ovulation or two I think.