A few religious question for catholics.

[Staga]

Originally posted by NUKE
I have said I believe that nobody will go to heaven without accepting Jesus.

So God is such an bellybutton that he, after he created whole universe and our little planet with hundreds of different races and religions would give access to heaven only for a part of humankind while sending others to damnation and oblivion.

What an stunninghunk would a god like that be... Anyways that doesn't sound like the one I've heard about but if someone likes to think his creator is a God of vengeance and malevolence who am I to critisize his faith.

[Nash]

Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:

"Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?" - Toad

I find the position silly, myself... but then I find 99% of it silly. You hold the bible as the word of God, and rituals as a distraction from that word. Me, I think the "word of God" itself is a distraction from the word of God... if that makes any sense.

But it doesn't matter, because I recognize that religious tolerance works both ways. Your belief is narrowly defined. Toad finds that troublesome. Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.

You are as much entitled to your beliefs (however offensive to others) as others are entitled to theirs. You simply think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I don't think you've strayed from that position in this thread, nor does it apear that you have you mocked people who believe otherwise. Stating a position at odds with someone else's position is not mocking.

And I think you should be commended for remaining civil.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:

"Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?" - Toad

I find the position silly, myself... but then I find 99% of it silly. You hold the bible as the word of God, and rituals as a distraction from that word. Me, I think the "word of God" itself is a distraction from the word of God... if that makes any sense.

But it doesn't matter, because I recognize that religious tolerance works both ways. Your belief is narrowly defined. Toad finds that troublesome. Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.

You are as much entitled to your beliefs (however offensive to others) as others are entitled to theirs. You simply think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I don't think you've strayed from that position in this thread, nor does it apear that you have you mocked people who believe otherwise. Stating a position at odds with someone else's position is not mocking.

And I think you should be commended for remaining civil.

Nash, thanks. That means a lot to me.

[Creamo]

Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:

 

Actually, if you read the thread backwards, it says "Nuke is Satan, Nuke is Satan, and Zulu7 is a retard".

What's just as crazy, if you read the thread from the start, it goes all over the place, and they says "Zulu7 is a retard".

Weird.

[Nash]

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Nash
Nuke, Toad thinks you are insulting people by saying that if they don't belive in Jesus they are going to hell. I think if you go back over the posts it really all boils down to that:

"Why don't you show your belief again and tell everyone that doesn't believe exactly as you do that they're going to hell?" - Toad

I find the position silly, myself... but then I find 99% of it silly. You hold the bible as the word of God, and rituals as a distraction from that word. Me, I think the "word of God" itself is a distraction from the word of God... if that makes any sense.

But it doesn't matter, because I recognize that religious tolerance works both ways. Your belief is narrowly defined. Toad finds that troublesome. Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.

You are as much entitled to your beliefs (however offensive to others) as others are entitled to theirs. You simply think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I don't think you've strayed from that position in this thread, nor does it apear that you have you mocked people who believe otherwise. Stating a position at odds with someone else's position is not mocking.

And I think you should be commended for remaining civil.

Chrissy Snow?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
Yet, many people would find Toad's more open interpretation still too narrow and could easily take just as much offence to his version as he does to yours.

 

They may think it narrow and they might take offense to my version. Always possible.

Of course, they'd never find me claiming that there's only "one way" and everyone else is going to hell, would they?

They'd never find me dissing their religious rituals either.

In my Father's house there are many mansions.

I think, although I've got to check this out some more, that I may be what some call a Universalist.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Toad
Of course, they'd never find me claiming that there's only "one way" and everyone else is going to hell, would they?

But so what?

"One way" is just as much a belief as "more than one way". It's obvious that you think your belief is right, and his is wrong. Which is fine. But why take offense?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nash
But so what?
 

Well, there's valid reasons to take offense and there are not so valid reasons.

[Nash]

Well okay, sure. There are. What constitutes "valid" is an individual matter.

It's pretty pointless to argue one's belief over another's then, aint it?

[Toad]

Go to square one.

Tell me you REALLY think Nuke started this thread purely in an academic search for knowledge about Catholicism.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Toad
Go to square one.

Tell me you REALLY think Nuke started this thread purely in an academic search for knowledge about Catholicism.

I asked some questions, they got answerd and then I stopped asking them. Read my exchanges, I'm completey civil. I even apoligized for possibly coming of poorly regarding the Catholic faith.

From page two, I have been defending my beliefs from your assault on them. And I never once said that I thought you're beliefs were invalid.

You have called me a simpleton, putz, and said that my understanding was childish. Then, you claimed you entered thkis thread to try and "help" me.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Nash
Well okay, sure. There are. What constitutes "valid" is an individual matter.

It's pretty pointless to argue one's belief over another's then, aint it?

And that takes you back to the start of this thread: Pointless. It serves no purpose other than to mock a different religion and to be self promoting. The great irony is that this is the primary "flaw" people cite with Christianity in general. Catholics get defensive because someone's mocking their religion and non-Catholic Christians get defensive because nuke is personifying all that is wrong with Christianity and providing a solid foundation for the stereotyping.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
Well okay, sure. There are. What constitutes "valid" is an individual matter.

It's pretty pointless to argue one's belief over another's then, aint it?

Faith requires that one takes an illogical leap, a leap of faith.  If one were securely footed in logic, the illogical leap would not happen.

Therefore pure faith is illogical and pure logic is faithless.

This is why argueing religion is a fruitless endeavour and 7 pages of posting has not yet made progress.

So a man is killed, and checks in at the gates of Heaven.  St Peter invites him in for the initiates tour, and he and Peter walk by a group of souls at a lovely lakeside park having a picnic.  The folks smile and wave at the new guy, and Peter informs him that the group are Catholics.

A little farther down the path,  another group are playing softball, the folks smile and wave at the new guy, and Peter informs him that the group are Methodists.

Still further down the path,  another group are playing music, singing and dancing. The folks smile and wave at the new guy, and Peter informs him that the group are Baptists.

Then the pair walk past a high alabaster wall.  Peter gestures withg a finger to his lips for the initiate to be very quiet as they pass.  After passing by, the new guy asks, "What was with the wall and why did we need to remain silent?"

Peter says, "Behind the wall is the Mormon contingent.  They think they are the only ones here."

[Nash]

I think there's a lot of truth in that MiniD.

Originally posted by Toad
Tell me you REALLY think Nuke started this thread purely in an academic search for knowledge about Catholicism.

And you joined this thread purely in an academic.....

Not so much, it turns out.

In fact, your version of things now is that Nuke was trolling and that you were messin' with him on account of it. And that the religious discussion was just smoke and mirrors. And these 7 pages of debate between you and him were never really about the particulars of faith, but your way of telling him that you think he's a troll?

Granted, brevity never really was your strong suit...

Nor mine.