By What Authority?

by Orthodox1 183 Replies latest jw friends

  • Orthodox1

    King Solomon,

    You are still attacking me and not caring for the topic. What gives anyone the authority to believe in what they want to believe over anyone elses beliefs?

    I, of course, have a Catholic perspective (no hidden agenda here). I believe history, traditions, scripture, and reason all point to the Catholic faith.

    Please tell me where I am wrong instead of accusing me of false humility and egocentricism, and whatnot. I'm not interested in your instults. I never once said I am being persecuted. I only made the observation that much hate is displayed through bigotry and typical religion-bashing. I can take it all day, and I will, hence I am still here ;) ....

    When you are finished throwing mud at me, please give me some insight into your own beliefs and what makes you right and everyone else wrong. I'm at my limit for posts for today, but I'll keep reading.

    God love you!

  • apostatethunder

    King Solomon, the earlier martyrs were Christians, that means they followed Christ, same for anybody that follows his teachings nowadays.

    People that claim to be Christians but don’t follow him, specially those in a position of teaching or shepherding others, are the wolves in sheep clothes he warned about.

    His teachings are very simple, love God above all else and your neighbour as yourself.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Orthodox1 said:

    I believe history, traditions, scripture, and reason all point to the Catholic faith.

    Yeah, well "freedom of religion" means you can believe in whatever foolish thing you wish, including cleared thetans (Scientology) or golden tablets (Mormons). or Virgin Births (that would be you). That's all the secular authority you need to believe: the Constitution. The rest of it is fair game, so you're as free to tell any balder-dashed lies you want. Heck, Catholics know a thing or two about rhetoric, debating tricks, and apologetics.

    FWIW, I believe Jesus was a compliation of characters who existed, but the official character apparently believed the Old Testament was Divinely-Inspired. However, even a prefunctory analysis of the OT suggests the Torah is a clever work of uninspired men (Hebrew elite who, over a period of at least 1,000 yrs, used the belief in YHWH as a tool to control the masses).

    Some things NEVER change, namely a need for men to find ways to control other men.

    I never once said I am being persecuted. I only made the observation that much hate is displayed through bigotry and typical religion-bashing.

    You said HATE was being displayed AGAINST YOU on the basis of expressing your faith: that IS the very definition of persecution.

    I repeatedly went out of my way to state that you AREN'T feeling any hatred from me, unless such emotion was improperly generated in your mind (i.e. persecution complex). I assured you that you are not important enough to generate such a strong emotion as hate: rational people don't hate unknown forces. You seemingly took umbrage with any such attempts to dissuade you from your persecution complex.

    You said these words:

    ...anxiously awaiting the hate now...

    and this:

    You've seen the vitriole on here toward me and others of faith, so please don't accuse me of having a complex; the hatred is real...And, I'm no better than anyone else, so if it seems I have some large ego, I apologize. Though you accuse me of having a big ego and a persecution complex, thank you for not hating me...

    The definition of Persecute:

    1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. 2. To annoy persistently; bother.

    Definition of Persecution Complex:

    An irrational and obsessive feeling or fear that one is the object of collective hostility or ill-treatment on the part of others.

    Claiming to be hated for one's beliefs is the very definition of being persecuted, so even though you didn't use those exact word, you claimed it by definition.

    Fine. You need help to overcome it, as I can assure you all day long you are NOT being persecuted, but you'd simply interpret it as further persecution, reinforcing the belief.

  • Twitch
    ...anxiously awaiting the hate now...'

    sounds like trolling to me

    I sense a superiority I haven't felt since being in the presence of my old religion - Darth Twitch

  • Isidore

    "No actually a hedge-my-bet atheist based upon rational logic and reasoning."

    I respect atheists. They at least adhere to a system of "belief". Agnostics are just cowards that won't commit to anything.

    My belief in Catholicism is also based on rational thought and reasoning. Which is why it's systematic theology is so coherent. I would submit to you to take a stab and read St. Thomas Aquinas. But I warn you, his writings have converted many a militant atheists.

  • Finkelstein

    One can respect the moral tenets of Christianity at the same time be an atheist, wasn't Christ the first humanist ?

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    I respect atheists. They at least adhere to a system of "belief". Agnostics are just cowards that won't commit to anything.

    Actually, you're perpetuating an old misbelief.

    On the issue of belief in Gods, it's actually more difficult to be an agnostic than an atheist, as it means not having an opinion and saying there's not enough knowledge to make a decision; so on the issue, they should remain mute, and listen. Atheists have concluded there is no God, based on a lack of evidence (or even, evidence to the contrary).

    The types you refer to who CLAIM to be agnostic simply are flip-floppers, i.e. one day they're talking like theists, the next like atheists, depending on their particular mood. They are simply wishy-washy and indecisive, faux agnostics: they give true agnostics a bad name by labelling themselves as such....

  • apostatethunder

    King Solomon, for someone that doesn’t care you are going on too strong on this subject and on orthodox in particular.

    Cofty, if you care about children being abused demand more punishment for perverts to the Law. I would totally support that.

  • rather be in hades
    rather be in hades

    first and foremost, i have nothing against religion. i am not religious, but you may believe whatever you want. i do take issue with cults obviously...having come out of one that wrecked my childhood and mentally brought me to my knees.

    You see things very differently than history does... I see the Catholic Church, over hundreds of years, slowly assuming all of the Roman Pagan world into herself, destroying the Pagan world as it was known, that stood for a thousand years as oppressors. The evil Romans weren't then Evil Roman Catholics, but were converted through the love and prayers of the martyrs and laity of the Church.

    what exactly is pagan? if you are talking about religions not based on the bible, or native religions...that seems rather presumptuous and egotistic of you to ASSUME that they are wrong and you are right, especially in light of the complete and total lack of evidence that ANY of those miracles actually happened.

    great flood?

    adam and eve?

    garden of eden?

    mltiple ressurections?

    as i said, you can believe whatever you like, but ASSUMING that you have the right religion and that it is somehow your right and duty to "destroy the pagan world" as you so lovingly put it, is wrong and there's no other way to put it.

    what i also find funny is how you can call so and so oppressors, but you apparently don't seem to recall the glorious inquisitions that the catholic church used to stamp out other people's beliefs. you would do well to read more about the history of the catholic chrch in south and central america as well. hardly loving i would say.

    i believe i recall the actual (if he were even real) christ telling peter to put away his sword. i recall the bible saying jesus told his followers to forgive up to 77 times. the period after catholocism became the state religion were very much against that concept. so were the crusades, etc

    Pick up a copy of City of God, by St. Augustine so you can read from a primary source (seeing as he was writing as events were unfolding) how the Catholics were put to death by the Roman Pagans, how the Barbarians slaughtered the Romans but spared the Christians out of respect for the divine man, Jesus. The Catholic Church did not become Roman, but Roman became Catholic. To say otherwise is just a total disregard for truth.

    and yet they turned around and killed those that didn't agree with them. the witch hunts were a fascinating piece of history. of course i say this as someone who wasn't a victim...

    Should a murderer convert to the Church tomorrow, I pray you have the intellectual honestly to understand that the Church isn't of murderers, but of men who were once murderers who have found truth and salvation through the Church Jesus established, for he said, "Upon this Rock, I will build my Church, not churches, bibles, or foundations, but one single Church for all his disciples. And why wouldn't He?

    1) how do you know christ even existed? are we to honestly believe someone raised others from the dead? turned water into wine and miraculously healed the sick? why is this not done today as a testament to the power and love of god/christ? in the information age, i can only imagine how powerful a testimony it would be for god to shout from the heavens that the catholic chrch is HIS chrch, in mch the same way he shouted from the heavens that christ was HIS son.

    2) given the bloody history of the catholic church, can we honestly say that jesus would approve of it? would jesus approve of so much corruption throughout the centuries? how would he feel about the sexual abuse scandals and why on earth wouldn't he prevent that? we're talking kids for godssake. innocent kids who should never be harmed in such a way. why wouldn't christ prevent that from happening in HIS church? especially if that would deter/turn off ANY to catholocism. seems like a rather large stmbling block to me and i don't think the bible says anything good about stmbling others.

    God is not a God of confusion or shortsightedness. He does all things with purpos, like establishing His Church on earth. It would be a very cruel thing for a loving God to create tens of thousands of competing churches when he prayed that they all be one body with one head.

    this is an intersting point. i go back and forth whether i believe in god. right now, i'm vvery mch hoping there is one. i can't conceive that god would purposely stumble and confse those who want to worship him. on this we agree. so why would god create a text that led to so many other denominations? the bible is said to be a technical manual of sorts. something that would guide you through life and show you the right way to worship god yes? if that's the case, god totally failed tech writing 101 because there's a ridiculoust amount of christian sects all basing their beliefs on the same book. on top of that, we don't even get the original copy to go back to in order to properly interpret the bible. add to the fact that it no longer fits into what we KNOW as far as human sexuality, human psychology and frankly...reality. once again, i go back to jesus healing the sick, jonah and the whale/fish/shark/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, the great flood, the garden of eden, ressurections, fireballs from heaven, jericho, the red sea and the plagues...yet nothing miraculous happens today. there's zero physical evidence that any miracle in the bible happened, there's no factual reason to say your religion is any less false than those of the natives who were oppressed and wiped out by the christians. i'm 100000% certain that if christ were real, he certaily wouldn't approve or give his blessing to a group that used tortre and death to puush his word. i think he wanted his disciples to preach, not conduct an inquisition. in conclusion, i would like to leave you with this quote i happen to like: "the bible is right and all your native culture is wrong" just seemed fitting

  • apostatethunder

    Maybe paganism was superior to the Bible. When Christopher Columbus arrived in America the Indians were practicing brutal human sacrifices. Maybe they should have been left alone.

    Pagan morals are also much more fun than the Christian ones, just don’t expect the same level of spiritual development or even trustworthiness from a temple prostitute, than from a Christian. If you extrapolate this to the type of society they produce, you can see clearly which one is superior to the other.

    We are not in the middle ages anymore, even though some people seem to be stuck there. The Church doesn’t burn anyone these days. Protestants also did it at the time. Some totalitarian atheistic regimes still do it in the XXI century.

Share this