Catholics are making it up.

And yet you didn't say anything at all about inclusive humanism.Try again. "Jesus promoted inclusive humanism." Discuss.

Limbo is not abolished. Christ forgives all sins. You were catechized?

Everything is wrong here. Francis granted an exemption from celibacy to Amazonian priests because of difficulty having priests there.

It was effectively canned in 2007 in "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized." Which concluded that

quote:

---

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.

---

It then waffles on about not actually knowing anything at all - ie it's Catholics making stuff up - but the effect was to kill Limbo dead in the developed world. I bloody hope not. I was, however baptised and confirmed if that's any help.

He also allowed married Anglican in the UK to become RC priests. Because, guess what, the UK is desperately short of priests after the revolting global child abuse scandals.So yeh, priests are no longer required to be celibate, just a matter of convenience.

Don't get glib with me. The topic is open. You wont get away with dismissing Christianity as a Fairy Tale being a default position and I dont care which Forum we are at.I've heard several voices at once come out of a guy. I had two witnesses with me. You cant convince me that these stories are fairy tales, nor should you even have that as a motive. And I know that you mock the apologists, but William Lane Craig was one of the better ones and he said:

quote:

---

Someone passed on to me a question via email that someone in the class had after hearing my talk on the hiddenness of God. This person asked, What do you mean by saying God doesn’t care if we believe that he exists or not? What I said was that it is a matter of relative indifference to God whether or not we believe that he exists. Rather, what God is primarily interested in is building a love relationship with us — bringing us into a saving relationship with himself. If he cannot achieve that end because of our free will and rebelliousness then relatively speaking it is a matter of indifference whether or not you come to believe that God exists. So you have, for example, the apostle James saying in his epistle, Do you believe that God is one? You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble. James there I think is using a bit of irony. He is saying, You believe there is one God? Well, good for you. That is just fine. Even the demons believe, and they tremble because they have no saving relationship with God. I think what James is saying there is that if you believe that God exists but you don’t really know him (you are not in relationship with him) then just believing that he exists doesn’t really do you any good at all. It is a matter of relative unimportance to believe that God exists, unless you truly believe in God, unless you know God, and have a saving relationship with him.

​

So what the atheist is assuming when he propounds the hiddenness of God is that if God were to make his existence more obvious that there would be more people who would come into a saving relationship with God than actually do in the actual world. My point was that that is sheer speculation on the atheist’s part. He has no way at all of knowing that in a world in which the existence of God was as a plain as the nose on your face that more people would come to love, believe in, and trust God than do in the actual world. Since the atheist cannot prove that, the fact that God’s existence is not more obvious therefore does not cast any kind of improbability upon God’s existence.

---

I will admit that you folks at EvC are better than average at demolishing apologetic arguments, but to use the one about evidence and that absence of evidence equating to evidence of absence wont fly in this argument. It is not up to my side to support the positive truth claim. That's a weak argument. If anything, both sides bare a burden of proof to some degree. This is a perfect example of a claim which requires more than parroting mythicist arguments and secular scholars with no ax to grind. Perhaps the Bible enjoyed a free pass for years until these debunkers came along and sharpened their arguments (and I would argue their ax'es) but atheism is not the default. Get off your hobby horse and grow a pair. That's easy.

Jesus likely never existed. (Burden of proof is on you. Simply saying that millions of people accepted a myth is weak at best. You attack (or perhaps challenge is a better word ) the authors, the credibility of the authors and yet we never know the motives of the authors. jar claims that source is moot and that content should be judged. I argue that motive remains an important piece of evidence.

ringo writes:

​

But you're the one who throws out the Bible.

Nonsense. I may not hand out as much spare change as you do, but I help clothe, feed, and encourage as many folks on a daily basis as do you guys. Where we differ is that you claim that the messenger (the very Son of the Living God) is unimportant and that atheist secular humanists can actually do a better job taking care of needy people than can many if not most of the believers. Sadly, you may have a point on this one. jar used to argue against the excuse that was made that the perps were not really true Christians, but I would allow that one in court due to the belief that people are born fallen and that there are far too many lukewarm believers which give the sold out believers a bad rap.

ringo writes:

​

We've been in the "last days" for two thousand years. Isn't that fairy tale getting a bit tired by now?

I dont think so. Shall I use the book or will you say that the book itself is a fairy tale whenever it suits your purpose yet accuse me of not following that same book when it suits your arguments?

2 Peter 3:3-7 writes:

​

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

​

And that brings up another common one used here at EvC: Examining the Bible honestly in order to determine the compilation of books actual purpose and meaning. We can get to that.

​

ringo writes:

​

Try again. "Jesus promoted inclusive humanism." Discuss.

​

I will be honest with you regarding this one. I began examining the evidence(The Bible itself) in order to refute your claim and uphold the claim of the exclusiveness of Christ What I ended up finding was that Jesus did promote inclusive humanism. One could argue, however, that He did want people to follow Him and that His way was exclusive when it came to belief yet inclusive when it came to actions and works. But thats another argument regarding Johns Redactors.

---

The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. Anne Lamott
I Have Strong Arguments Which I Cant Say To You~CG

Its not a matter of convenience.Limbo is not abolished.Stop with the misinformation

Not only is it abolished the Vatican tells us it actually never existed. It was always just a 'hypothesis'. You have to laugh.

quote:

---

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

​

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

​

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.

---

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised

that's not limbo. limbo is the old word for purgatory, which still exists in catholic dogma. the official church position on infants was never given. no catholic claims to know what happens to souls when we die, but we do believe in heaven, hell, and purgatory. purgatory is brought up probably once a month at mass. most go to purgatory, even Catholics, where we have to pay for our sins, until we're allowed into heaven. purgatory is a place of torture and yes it is still believed in by the catholic faithful and affirmed by the pope.

why is it not surprising that a cradle catholic has no idea what his belief system is (op)?but to have the hutzpa to recycle misinformed garbage and continue to believe it, wow.the pope in special circumstances has allowed priests to serve without being celibate.celibacy is central to the catholic faith in its position on priesthood. however, the church has always allowed men who were married to become priests. in instances where there are not enough priests there must be ways to have mass and carry out the sacraments. celibacy is important to francis and pope benedict. our priests are married to the church.there was a time in the church when there were no celibate priests.certain traditions do change.Christ's position on divorce is clear.pope francis instituted a year of mercy which helped usher in a year of remittance of sins by Christ,the church does evolve as Christ speaks to us.The Divine Mercy Apostolate is an example of a recent addition to the catholic church.although Divine Mercy was always doctrinal and gospel truth, Jesus gave Saint Faustina a special directive to send souls to Our Lord of Divine Mercy before the apocalypse.research the church. you'll find a lot of these "controversies" are bunk. there has never been a religion surrounded by so much misinformation.nothing claimed in this thread by tangle is legitimate.Edited by a servant of Christ, : No reason given.

The topic is, "The CATHOLICS are making it up." I didn't do any such thing. I clearly said, "We've been in the "last days" for two thousand years. Isn't that fairy tale getting a bit tired by now?" Message 450 You're being dishonest. You know damn well that it's the same argument you use against the things you don't believe in. I'm not parroting anything. I don't even know the scholars' arguments.And you didn't answer the question. What possible reason could I have for discrediting somebody who didn't exist? Do you have a reason to discredit Frodo? Yes it is. It is the default literally by definition. Where does that come from? It has NOTHING to do with how much spare change you give out. It's about you throwing out the Bible. You throw out the part in Genesis 3 where God said as plain as day that "the Fall" was a GOOD thing. You throw out the part where Jesus told the rich man what he must do to be saved. You throw out the part where the Roman Church DID what Jesus told the rich man to do. You throw out the part where Jesus said that the judgement depends on what people DO for the least of His brothers. You throw out the part where He said that pretending to believe by mouthing, "Lord! Lord!" will not fool Him. Shall I go on? Or do you have the courage to defend your throwing out those passages? Nope. The false logic is obviously yours. You use the same logic as I'm using to deny the existence of leprechauns, etc. But you don't know the authors' motives. Even if it was evidence, it's evidence you don't have. Try using your head first. How can you use a book that was written two thousand years ago to back up your claims about what has happened since the book was written? So, for somebody who doesn't have a clue - in your words - it seems like I know Jesus better than you do. That's because you've been swallowing the snake oil.

I just Googled "limbo abolished" and "purgatory abolished". Every major news service seems to agree that limbo has beeb abolished.

fake news

No it's not. Limbo is the place unbaptised babies were supposed go if they died. Neither heaven nor hell but they could never get to heaven.Purgatory is supposed to be a time-limited, mini-hell used for atoning for 'venial sins'. A process of 'purification by torture.' Everybody goes there for a bit unless you are lucky enough to be hit by a bus exiting the confessional muttering your Hail Mary's.Mortal sins could not be atoned for - that's what hell is for - everlasting torture.You couldn't make it up - except those crazy, psychopathic Catholics did.

quote:

---

The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed actual sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, although not the certainty, that these infants may attain heaven instead of the state of Limbo.

---

Limbo - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Purgatory (Latin: purgatorium, via Anglo-Norman and Old French)[1] is, according to the belief of some Christians (mostly Catholics), an intermediate state after physical death for expiatory purification. [...] The Catholic Church holds that "all who die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified" undergo the process of purification which the Church calls purgatory, "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". It bases its teaching also on the practice of praying for the dead, in use within the Church ever since the Church began, and mentioned in the deuterocanonical book 2 Macc 12:46.[5]

---

Purgatory - WikipediaOf course the Catholic Church got extremely rich by selling indulgences to the wealthy so that they could get out of purgatory early; a sort of get out of jail card. Yes, it's quite an evil idea isn't it? So much for the 'merciful Lord'

Yes, why do you do that? The Catholic teachings on Limbo, Purgatory and Hell have been there for centuries, how come you're still confused? Therefore it's no longer a requirement that catholic priests are celibate is it? Correct, celibacy is now a matter of convenience. It wasn't so central after all was it? Unless, of course, you were one of the thousands of children raped by those 'celibates'. They sure do. You seem to be saying that things are changing whilst denying that anything is changing. It's a tough line to walk isn't it? Haha.At one time the church's policy on divorce was very clear, it meant you couldn't do it for fear of excommunication. "what god has joined together let no man put asunder".Only the pope could annul a marriage and only in very special circumstances. He could do it because he was not 'no man', he was god's representative on earth. This meant that divorce was a practical impossibility.The pope even refused to allow king Henry VIII of England to remarry and as a result the Church of England and Anglicanism was created by him just so that he could. Bad move pope - didn't think it through. Still, back then the Catholic church was a political and power institution more than a religion.But divorce, like contraception - once an absolute no-no and a mortal sin worthy of everlasting damnation - modern life saw whole swathes of Catholics abandoning the religion because of it, the once totally intransigent divorce 'rules' had to be changed.So divorce is now devolved to your local priest.

quote:

---

The Vatican is making it much easier for Catholics to annul their marriages following a push by Pope Francis for reformation of a process long criticised for being complicated, costly and out of reach for many.

​

Rules unveiled on Tuesday speed up the annulment process, with a fast-track procedure now available, and allow for appeals to be judged by a local church official rather than the Vatican in what represents a significant decentralisation of power away from Rome.

---

Pope reforms Catholic church’s marriage annulment process | Pope Francis | The GuardianSo a process once so impossible that a king couldn't do it, is now so trivial that anybody can.Again, a matter of pragmatism and convenience The church evolves because if it didn't change its mind on matters it once thought sacrosanct, it would lose all its followers in the educated world. And yet I can point to chapter and verse. Odd that.