The "God" Argument ... (Moved from another thread)

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Bungalo Bill, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,802
    Yes, but Scripture addresses this. Scripture brings understanding, direction and fullfillment to the "basics" that, as is taught in Scripture, are imprinted upon our hearts by God. To yearn for morality IS to yearn for God, though we may not understand that as humans.
     
  2. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Well isn't that what you believe? You don't believe in God, you don't believe in either Heaven or Hell, so what do you think happens with you when you die? Nothing? And if nothing, then yes you life amounts to ultimately nothing.

    Yes, all that you are doing is meaningless for you, because it won't help you at all.

    It won't help you get an eternal reward for it, because you don't even believe in God and aren't in the Church in the first place, plus you don't have purity of intention and what you're doing are just natural good works which any godless person can do.
     
  3. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Exactly. People think they are "so good" and get offended if you tell them otherwise when in fact we are all born children of wrath in the sight of the Lord because of Original Sin.
     
  4. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,802
    Well, you know, it's not like they killed somebody. :D

    Unfortunately, most people don't truly grasp the concept of sin. They don't understand how sin, even "small" sins, take away from their own humanity as well as those they sin against. They are like small children who believe that being ashamed is about being bad. As one matures in their understanding of sin one should realize that being ashamed becomes so much more when one sees what they could be, those around them could be and how sin detracts from that.
     
  5. Djokovicfan4life

    Djokovicfan4life Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    5,484
    Location:
    Stillwater, OK
    I don't really care to get too involved in this discussion, but I do always get tickled when I hear people talking about being "good" and such.
     
  6. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Yes, that's why I told you that the Church is the decider of morality, and what we have to hear unless we want to be considered as the pagan and publican (Matthew 18:17), and not everything is in the Bible, which is why Tradition and the Church exist:

    2 Thessalonians 2:14- "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
     
  7. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Yes, this is exactly what I'm trying to tell you: what you are showing me that is post-Vatican II contradicts what the Church has taught. What I'm telling you is that it all started with Vatican II. Look it all up on the website that I showed you, it's all there.

    What I showed you were 2 dogmatic definitions, one from the Council of Trent and one from the Council of Florence, and the former said that water Baptism is necessary for salvation, and the latter said that no one can be saved, "unless he perseveres in the bosom and unity of the Church."

    And "that is necessary without which something cannot be." (St. Thomas.)
     
  8. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    mtommer,

    The new "catechism" is chuck full of heresy, error and apostasy, because it contains all of the heretical teachings of Vatican II and even some more.

    The "catechism" says that "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (#841) Do you believe that?

    Sorry, but the Muslims don't adore God. They don't believe in Jesus, and Jesus is God, and it is JESUS that will judge mankind on the last day, so it also contains blasphemy.
     
  9. ttbrowne

    ttbrowne Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,622
    Nothing is exactly what happens when you die. But you inferred that my life means nothing. You're wrong. Goodness is worth something, just not to your god.
    The eternal reward? Are you going there? If so, It doesn't sound like a reward to me. Sounds more like a...punishment.
    An eternity around people like yourself...
     
  10. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Man was created to live with God. Does that do it for you? The fuzzy feeling you feel when you do a good work? Is that all you live for? Just to "be good"? And then what?
     
  11. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,802
    This explains it better than I can. Suffice it to say, from the earliest has the view of baptism being normative been held. I stand by the Catechism, and thus by the Holy Spirit.

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

    "We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).
     
  12. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,802

    Okay, I get it, you don't like Vatican II. However, the Catechism and all teachings therein are backed up by Tradition and Scripture. It's that simple for me. While I realize not all teaching is dogmatic, I do not see fault in the Catechism even now but rather ernest effort in putting forth Christ's message to the world.
     
  13. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    Are you aware that there were a handful of early Church Fathers that believed in these so-called "baptism of blood", but that the great majority didn't and that some even wrote against it?

    The Church infallibly teaches that Water Baptism is necessary and that John 3:5 is literal. The Church has never taught officially nor infallibly nor has any Pope in any Encyclical that "baptism of blood or desire" are substitues when the sacrament can't be had.

    Btw what you quote is erroneous, and it doesn't even support "baptism of blood" because it says: "This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost." The Sacrament of Baptism can't be "lost", when you're validly baptized you can't be baptized again because it is sacrilege to do so. You only get baptized once.

    What you quote was probably talking about sanctifying grace, or justification, which can be lost and regained but you can't be in that state if you haven't been baptized first in the first place, because one enters the Church though the Sacrament of baptism.

    So I can hardly see how what you quote is an exception to the sacrament, because it isn't. It's from Tertullian, a Church Father, not a Pope.


    Read this:

    Catechism of the Council of Trent, Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection, p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

    I'm done talking about this. You're just another heretic looking for exceptions to the 7 times defined dogma.
     
  14. mtommer

    mtommer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,802
    Of course you are. You continue to insist that Vatican II is a heresy, somethig the Church DOES NOT put forth. In fact, that Vatican II can be "loosely interpreted" has been condemned by the Church (the problem that arose from Vatican II). Again, it all comes down to whether or not the current teachings put forth can be defended through Tradition and Scripture. They can be. Further, what was defined in the dogmatic councils has NOT been changed but rather further expounded upon. Vatican II was NOT a dogmatic council. It should be noted that the process of Vatican II was preceeded by Vatican I which was cut short. The Church, pre the five "heretical" Popes, saw the need for clarrification and unification with the modernistic way of life emerging.

    One need only look to the thief next to Christ on the cross to see that water is not mandotory for God. At the same time, we also see the importance of Baptism when Jesus is baptized by John. These two examples are COMPIMENTARY, not adversarial, in context.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2010
  15. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    I don't get how all the heresay of ages ago can be taken seriously.
    These were just people from way back who wrote some things down, some of them were good wisdom.

    A lot of people just built on this and called it a religion.

    Many people don't want to die and have no where to go, that's where religion fills a void. There's a fear of having everything end, that is how it is and there's no way out.

    There is no special reason for our lives, why should there have to be?
    We live in the moment, happy today, sad tomorrow until the last breath, nothing more.
    What we do or say is no more special than a spider making a web, however intricate it may be.
    It's somewhat disturbing but not to worry, it won't last to long.
     
  16. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    How old are you? I don't want to keep talking about it because you don't know anything about Catholic teaching, so I'm wasting my time.

    Vatican II contains heresy and attempted to teach doctrines that were already infallibly condemned by the Church, that's a fact. Never has the Church, any Council or Pope attempted to do that in the whole history of the Church, because it can't be done.

    You obviously don't know the first thing about infallibility, what an ex cathedra teaching is, or about heresies and doctrines condemned infallibly or by the Magisterium.

    The job of the Church is to CLEARLY explain and expound the Faith, not to teach ambiguities and things that can be "loosely interpreted" which only lead to error and heresy and consequently to Hell. That's what heretics do. They cover their teachings under the guise of ambiguity, affirming one thing here, and then contradicting it on the next page. This is Modernism (which was condemned by Pius X), but you obviously don't know anything about this either because you're a modernist yourself.

    The modernist believes teachings and dogmas can be changed and "updated" or "adapted" to fit the times, but "since Truth cannot contradict Truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the Faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted." -Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8. 19 December 1513.

    Have you even read the Syllabus of Errors?

    #80: "The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization." -Condemned


    You're over your head here and dealing with things you don't even understand.


    Oh really? And did you know that Dogmas have to be always believes as they are once declared and that their meaning can never change?

    Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

    Nothing has been changed eh? Please read these files carefully and then say that again:

    The changes in the Vatican II "council"

    The changes to the Mass

    The changes regarding partaking in non-Catholic worship

    The changes regarding Ecclesiology (the nature of the Church)


    The good thief died under the Old Law, before the Law of Baptism was made obligatory after Jesus's Resurrection. It's like saying "well how was Moses saved without being baptized? Or Daniel?"

    You don't know what you're talking about.
     
  17. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
  18. Cross-court

    Cross-court Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    322
    I'm out of this thread, don't reply until you read all of those files carefully.

    See ya.
     
  19. asdfuogh

    asdfuogh New User

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    I don't know if anyone has already said this... but the "Big Bang" is a theory, and like all other scientific theories, that means it is basically an idea that is very widely accepted and no evidence to the contrary has been put forth with any credit. And, yes, there is evidence for the Big Bang, as evidenced by the cosmic waves hypothesized by the Big Bang theory. So much for that first post...
     
  20. TennisNinja

    TennisNinja Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,522
    Location:
    Someplace, Somewhere
    Personally I don't care what you believe. I for one am not religious and support the evolution theory, but whenever some religious nutcase goes and tries to convert me, screaming at me that my life won't be fullfilled and I'm living a false life, that's when I get ticked off.
     

Share This Page