According to certain sects of Christianity, you can convert on your deathbed and still make it to heaven. Those sects also believe you can do terrible things like enslave, rape, or murder a billion people, ask God for forgiveness, and still go to Heaven.

You're assuming breaking windows is bad. It might just turn out that we were just trying to get to the fire extinguisher so that we could stop our world from burning down.

Well, let's say the world is composed of the prison, and the warden can do anything and everything, and he knows anything and everything. Let's say that his morals are the only true morals (since in the case of Christians, morality is independent of human thought since only God can define morality). And then the warden tells the inmates to worship a certain God, or else he'll beat the shit out of them on a daily basis for the rest of eternity.

You have to assume that morality stems from the so-called word of God, rather than human thought, to believe that you must worship God or else you will go to Hell. If tomorrow you found out that God declared you can only wear green shirts, would you only wear green shirts? If God said that you had to drive a pickup truck to work, would you only drive a pickup truck to work? If God commanded that heterosexuality is a sin, would you stop being a heterosexual? If God told you that you should not kill anyone, except you had to kill your parents once you turn eighteen, would you kill your parents when you turn(ed) eighteen?

Now, answer those questions if your local preacher had told you to do those things. Assume that he claims that God spoke directly to him (or that he was inspired by God), so you can consider his words to be the word of God.

Now, answer those questions if a previously-lost section of the "original" Bible was uncovered and translated. Assume that the new "commandments" were written by people who claimed that God spoke directly to them (or that they were inspired by God), so you can consider to their words to be the word of God.

I hope you wouldn't murder your parents if God ever told you to do so.

Would society break into chaos if God and His morality ceased to exist, while the government remained stable and the police were still functioning? I doubt it. People can be moral without needing religion to guide them. Religion certainly helps--it places memorable metaphors in the minds of those who listen to the stories. However, society can function without being ultra-religious (And society can still function without having the majority of the population superficially claim to be a member of religion X.)

-----

Now think of this:
A group of young children are placed on an island, taught how to farm and survive, and left to develop their own morals without interference from any outsiders. As they grow up, do they:
a) Develop a code of laws specially adapted for their miniature society?
b) Never develop any rules because they don't have a Bible.

Scenario A would definitely happen. Their laws and customs may be different from contemporary Christian America, but that doesn't make them wrong. Morality differs between time and location. British laws in the 1700's are different from British laws in the 2000's are different from Japanese laws in the 1200's.

Prove it. I'd certainly believe in Heaven and Hell if I saw undeniable proof. It's possible that they're there, but the current evidence is kind of shaky.

Furthermore, why do innocent babies die every day even though they've done nothing wrong? Why do people that have never heard of Christianity do nothing wrong? Why did Gandhi go to Hell?

As I said before, it's virtually impossible to do, since you can't exactly lie your way into being saved.

Babies die because Their mothers do drugs when they are pregnant, drop their babies on their heads, or shake them.
I seriously doubt that there is anyone out there who hasn't done anything wrong. If they did, I suppose they would go to heaven, since they can't be perfect, they won't.
I don't know if Ghandi went to heaven or hell. I never knew him, and even if I did I wouldn't know if he was saved or not.

Something most people don't understand about being perfect is that there aren't varying degrees of it. You are, or you're not, and trust me, you aren't.
A person who murders ten million people is just as guilty as a five year old who got caught with there hand in the cookie jar.
A heterosexual who commits adultry is just as guilty as a homosexual.

The Catholic Church is not a Christian church because they and their doctrines disagree with the Bible; not because I think they aren't a Christian church.

I go to a Calvinistic, confessional, conservative Reformed church. Not especially not tiny on a world scale, nor huge.

K_A, the Bible disagrees with you, not me. Jesus and the apostles disagree with you. I don't know whether babies have a conscience and I don't know if babies go to heaven or hell; I don't know of any limbo spoken of in the Bible so I doubt they go there.

Hades may be the Greek underworld, but the word you are looking for is Sheol. Sheol is where unconverted souls go after death, to await the final judgment. Converted people are said to go to be with God, in some way I don't exactly understand. Sheol is a place separated from God, and is certainly a place of suffering. Hell is spoken o as a lake of fire, and is spoken of as a real place. That's where you go if you are not converted, after judgment day.

@ray Heaven is this earth but perfect. I don't know where Hell is, and I don't think it exists right now as it's unnecessary till Judgment Day. Sheol isn't a physical place, as souls aren't physical; you can't empirically prove Sheol.

Ray, please read Lord of the Flies and tell me if it's a realistic portrayal of the nature of man without God. That is what would happen in the event that a bunch of kids were left on an island. Also, remember that law is not morals. Morals never change, just laws and what people decide are the morals they can agree with change.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 19 2011, 10:38 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: Removed poor tone; SD Rule #1.

Examples.

Thank you. It's harder to argue with you when we don't know. I'm glad you showed sincerity at the risk of being vulnerable. I'll tell you I was Catholic till I was 12, then Methodist for a few years before losing faith.

When the bible leaves important info about things like this out, it's not uncalled for that they make an educated guess. It's not like they are adding limbo into the bible. They openly acknowledge this is their best explanation after thorough research(theologically), and they don't excommunicate those that disagree with it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+3%3A11-19&version=NIV
No suffering. Both righteous and unrighteous go to Sheol. Virtually everyone does unless stated otherwise specifically, like Jesus and some others. Then on Judgement day, God separates the goats from the sheep.
Hell is not spoken of as a lake of fire. The Lake of Fire is spoken of as a lake of fire. Hell, and even HEAVEN are both temporary. God/Jesus makes a new heaven+Earth, and lives and rules over us in it forever. This new creation is supposed to be better than heaven, so heaven isn't the most awesome thing imaginable. In Revelations, Satan and HELL itself are both cast into the Lake of Fire forever.

That's heaven 2.0, not the present one.

Really need to read up on the differences between hell and the lake of fire (Hell2.0)

It's an entertaining book, not a documentary. Next you're going to tell me how the events in "Atlas Shrugged" could have been prevented.

They disagree with YOUR interpretation of the bible.

Every thing that is written, must be interpreted to be understood. A statement such as "the sky is blue" has room for interpretations - what is "sky", what is "blue", what colours/shades count as "blue" and what do not, what about at night when the "sky" is "black"?

The bible, being 'poetic' as you like to call it, and being written so long ago, and translated, and edited multiple times (by various different people or organisations with specific agendas), definitely needs interpretation. To say otherwise is simply deliberate denial on your part.

Jack,

This argument has been made to you before and you have yet to accept it in any form. I will endeavor to complete this argument beyond any shadow of a doubt.

(**1**) Definition: Definition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition
: an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2
a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions>
c : a product of defining
3
: the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group
4
a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition>
b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction
c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>


(**2**) Definition: Christian
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian?show=0&t=1305788708
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2
: the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress


(**3**) Definition: Catechism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catechism
%uFFFDnoun
1.
Ecclesiastical .
a.
an elementary book containing a summary of the principles of the Christian religion, especially as maintained by a particular church, in the form of questions and answers.
b.
the contents of such a book.
2.
a similar book of instruction in other subjects.
3.
a series of formal questions put, as to political candidates, to bring out their views.


I begin with (**1**). You repeatedly insist that the Catholic Church is not Christian. The natural first question to ask when presented with an idea contrary to such a widely accepted fact is "why not"? If we assume there is some reason, then in the midst of the discussion it must be necessary to convey that reason in order to properly and intelligently continue with the discussion. So we can ask how the definition of the word used is not properly conveying the meaning you wish to use.

Here I draw on my own personal experiences in Serious Discussion. If I have ever encountered a single topic, paragraph, or even a sentence that was so complex as to require a definition of Christianity so precise and specific that the word %uFFFDChristian%uFFFD would not suffice; then I swear on my life I do not remember it. I have read your arguments and the arguments of those you%uFFFDre talking with, and you do not use your argument of the definition for anything. Even if there was a case where %uFFFDChristian%uFFFD wouldn%uFFFDt suffice, it would take 1 sentence to explain your meaning. There is nothing here to indicate to me that you are doing anything more than squabbling over a petty distinction; you wish to separate your faith from the Catholic Church in order to invalidate any arguments your opponents might use against the Catholic Church which could also apply to yours.

If there are truly arguments which apply to the Catholic Church and not yours then you will be able to defend yourself easily; just as you believe and have faith in God, you should realize that the truth will protect you. There is a reason I am calling out you, a Christian, and not someone here who argues for atheistic viewpoints; namely that you have something you believe in; a truth, God, Jesus, whatever you call it, that you can have faith in without worry. You do not argue like a Christian, you argue just like everyone else and this inconsistency and squabbling over petty nonsense ill suits your viewpoints. You don%uFFFDt have to worry about how your particular sect appears or whether you%uFFFDve %uFFFDwon%uFFFD the argument here, you just have to speak the truth.


Moving on, I found it interesting that the definition of Catechism (**3**) refers specifically to a Christian set of principles, and that the Catholic Church has a catechism. The merriam-webster version does not use the christian terminology however. Naturally they could simply be lying, misrepresenting their principles under a false name as you claim.


To show that they are not, I refer specifically to the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church. In the links below I provide both the index and the relevant link from Chapter Two, whose title here is self explanatory.

The beginning of the catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
%uF0A7 SECTION TWO I. THE CREEDS
%uF0A7 CHAPTER TWO I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1D.HTM

%uFFFDSuch is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God", for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."46 Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles..."47 "and in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'"48 From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the centre of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation.49%uFFFD

From this section of the catechism it can be seen that Catholics do in fact worship Jesus as Christ, the only son of god. These passages are derived directly from the citations in the bible. For example: %uFFFD[Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'%uFFFD comes directly from Acts 9:20
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PY3.HTM#GOSP.ACT.9.20

Here I believe it evident that the definition of (**2**) will be fulfilled. Acknowledging Christ as the only son of God implies belief in his teachings. The catechism is a direct derivation from the bible. If you wish me to pursue the argument further I will return and do so.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 19 2011, 10:23 am by CecilSunkure. Reason: SD Rule#1. The was off-topic and suitable for PMs.

Assuming you are using definition one (one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ), then I'd have to disagree with the dictionary. Many people say they believe the teachings of Jesus Christ. But many of those are not Christians. Perhaps it would be better if I said "true" Christians; then people will shout me down for using a No True Scotsman fallacy, even though as Kaias pointed out, No True Christian isn't the issue at hand. Regardless, many people professing Christ and professing Christianity are not true Christians; if your definition of Christian is that they merely outwardly profess that they believe in Jesus, then yes, Catholics are Christians. But I still refuse (yeahyeah faq2 sectionB)to believe that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution is a true Christian church. The original post outlines some of my reasons why I believe this; however, again, if mere outward professing of Christ is all that is necessary to be considered a Christian Church, then the Catholic Church qualifies.
See the original post.There's a first time for everything.

I most certainly do not wish to be associated in any way with an organization which over the centuries has lied to, murdered, and tortured hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. In addition, the Catholic Church holds that their tradition is equal in infallibility to the Bible; again, I don't want to be associated with that. I consider it to be more than a petty distinction. If you prefer, I'll use Protestant Christian instead of Christian, to better get the information across, rather than squabbling over whether the Catholic Church is a Christian Church; at the very least it deserves it's own topic.
I admit I have descended into petty squabbling over a distinction which, while I personally consider it to be important, is not relevant to the discussion at hand, and certainly not something which the other readers are likely to be convinced of; in addition I have yet to see a convincing argument to show me that the Catholic Church should be considered a "true" Christian church. This means further discussion is pointless. I daresay the reason I continued in this pointless discussion was this:

The devils also believe, and tremble. That's from the Bible. I doubt you'd consider devils to be Christian, except that according to your definition, THEY ARE CHRISTIANS. If you honestly consider everyone who does anything, good or bad, who merely says the words "I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ" to be a Christian, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Of course catholics are also Christians. If you believe anything else you're quite ignorant. And since Vraels proof doesn't seem good enough for you I'll provide another:
The protestants separated themselves from the catholics but that doesn't invalidate the catholic's Christianity.

If it helps you you can say you're not one of those Christians that murdered innocents, but you're still both Christian.

Maybe I can clear this up a little. Confessing a sing is a matter of intention, not so much saying the right words at the right time. If a kid breaks a window, and he apologizes, but goes back to breaking windows he didn't really mean the apology, did he? My mom's saying was "saying sorry means you promise never to do it again." I'll admit that 'never' is a strong word, but the thought behind that is that if you apologize, you recognize whatever you did was wrong, and that since it was wrong you will not do it anymore. Confessing sins is similar to that. If you rob a bank, pray for forgiveness, but go back and rob it, the intention to do the right thing isn't there. At that point, forgiveness is just a cop out. Now if you rob a bank, ask for forgiveness, and then are able to rationalize robbing a bank again, go home and realize what happened, asked for forgiveness, that is not a cop out.

It isn't always that simple, obviously. Assume that it is both sinful to watch porn and to have sex outside of marriage. But someone is ridiculously turned on, and they see it as either I could watch porn or go have sex, and so they choose porn. Both are sinful, but they were able to rationalize one over the other. Either way they're wrong, but they think they did the 'right' thing by choosing the lesser of two evils. If all sins are judged equally, how better off is he for watching porn over having sex?

We can't really answer that question, because on the surface...both are wrong. But, that he resisted the temptation of sex should say something, correct? Perhaps this is why people approach the church and confess sins as well. If you go up to a pastor in confidence and talk about smoking pot (oh but it isn't meth and I need a fix!), assuming that the pastor is nonjudgmental (as he should be) and with love in his heart (also as he should be), what would he do? He would probably condemn smoking pot (if its illegal, I'm assuming these are illegal, sorry!), but would probably try to help you find a way to break the addiction and get yourself out of sin. That is the role of the church, but if you don't confess what you're doing, they can't do their job. If you say "I'm smoking instead of doing meth" they probably would get the impression that you mean tobacco.

Moreover, its a very individual process. Only God knows the ways of our heart, and in the end he's the only one that will judge it. There's a story in the Bible that supposedly proves he is not omniscient because he goes down to ask Abel where his brother is, the argument being why would he ask if he didn't know? I think that its more God knew, but he wanted to know what Abel had to say about the situation. God knows you committed a sin, but he needs you to admit it before any healing can begin. Its very logical, because if you don't acknowledge the sin, you don't know you did wrong, and you can't rid it of your life.

Okay, this was long. I was trying to give examples. And along the same lines as everything being very individual, I'm sure that other Christians view sins differently and the correct way to deal with them.

Kame, you explained that beautifully
If only everyone in the world understood it this way.

@NudeRaider
Calling me ignorant is ad hominem; last I checked that was against the rules.

Let me make this absolutely clear to everyone. I DON'T THINK ALL CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. I have a problem with the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, which is composed of a hierarchy of Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and so on. I have a problem with people calling an organization Christian when its actions are not Christian. I have a problem with people calling an organization which teaches a large quantity of non-Biblical doctrines Christian.

Kame, what you said is good, as far as I can see. But that isn't the reason you are supposed to confess sins to priests in Catholic religion. The idea is that the priest is somehow more able to get you off the hook with God in regards to those sins than you yourself. This is never taught in the Bible, and gives you the ability to go out and sin some more, confess, rinse and repeat.

@Jack
I agree with you as there shouldn't be a hierarchy, it just perpetuates the fact the church as a business. But hell at least is not like the horrible things that the church of Scientology does.

It's not even the fact there's a hierarchy, although there are problems with that. It's the actions of said hierarchy, both now and in the past, and the doctines they actively promote.

That's debatable. Throughout history, the Catholic Church has done far worse than Scientology. Currently one could claim that all the weird brainwashing things Scientology does is similar to parents forcing their kids to go to church without letting them choose for themselves, or even the amount of times they attempt to convert people to Catholicism/Christianity. On top of that the Scientologists reject the use of medicinal drugs, and there are still Christian/Catholic establishments that prefer the healing of prayer or natural remedies over "modern medicine."

I know Scientology is such an easy target based on hearsay (because really, the entire religion seems to be ridiculous), but how many people here have actually been to a Scientology Center? My experience at one was similar to when I visited a church oh so long ago.