Catholic Church admits Bible is BS

"We are all individuals!"

‘I’m not!"

[ianch99]

Follow the Gourd! No, the Shoe is the sign

---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Jesus didn’t spend his time debating cosmology. He taught his disciples to do to others what they would have done to themselves, to honour their promises, to care for the weak, to stand up against oppression and to do all of the above from a posture of mercy and humility. He offered the strength of God himself to those who would live this way and the forgiveness of God to all those whose lives have fallen short of his holiness. His disciples came fairly quickly to understand that Jesus is only able to call people to live this way and to offer forgiveness to those who mess up because he is himself God incarnate. Thus following Jesus isn’t like following the Buddha, some other guru or a secular life-coach, because he’s not just another man, or even a rare and special man. it’s a life-changing faith in which one is in spiritual relationship with, and worship of, the one we follow.

The age of the universe and the laws of physics are fun and interesting topics but they don’t drive or motivate my faith. I’m sorry there was ever a time I allowed even the appearance that that was the case. Following Jesus isn’t about arguing over gravity or dark matter. It’s about citizenship in his divine kingdom and living in a way that shows personal and community transformation, forgiveness and a fresh start is possible.

As a statement of personal faith this is commendable and should be respected as such.

However .... the elephant in the proverbial Ecclesiastical room is the contradiction of New Testament teaching (as I understand it) with the degree of wealth many professed Christians (or Muslims, etc) retain and more importantly see no problem in doing so.

This comes from a chocolate box approach in adhering to the religious texts. I follow the tenets I like or that will not compromise my lifestyle and quietly ignore those that I do not like. You have the patently ridiculous situation where the head of the state church has a personal wealth measured in the hundreds of millions. You also have people like Rees-Mogg regular spouting Christian homilies while sitting on a net worth ~£100 million and actively offshoring as much as he can to avoid paying tax. These are a couple of high profile examples but there are many more.

To me, this does not seem consistent with the broad message of the New Testament. Some of the more Evangelical Christian sects try and ameliorate this by the requirement to tithe part of your income but as to whether these monies go directly to the needy is open to debate.

TL;DR extreme wealth seems incompatible with New Testament Christian teaching unless I missed the parable where Jesus helps the rich man exploit the poor and maximise his wealth in offshore investment vehicles

I'm an atheist. I prefer to look for the kindness and generosity in people whatever their religion or faith or beliefs.Religion is and was just a way to explain the world of the ancients and to try and bring some sense of order in chaos.If it comforts you good.However there are those who use religion to have dominion over others.Not got time for that.

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I'm an atheist. I prefer to look for the kindness and generosity in people whatever their religion or faith or beliefs.Religion is and was just a way to explain the world of the ancients and to try and bring some sense of order in chaos.If it comforts you good.However there are those who use religion to have dominion over others.Not got time for that.

I'm with you Maggy.

I have never judged anyone by what, if any, faith they follow. As far as I can see none of the religions I have come into contact with are without faults and their follows should be more concerned with sorting out their own house before criticising other peoples choices.

I believe that a person should be judged by the footprints they leave in the world and other's lives not by the hoard of possessions they leave behind.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by joglynne

I believe that a person should be judged by the footprints they leave in the world and other's lives not by the hoard of possessions they leave behind.

But surely by leaving behind a "hoard of possessions" they have arguably not left enough "footprints in other's lives"? One precludes the other when the size of the "hoard" is considerable.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Follow the Gourd! No, the Shoe is the sign

---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 ----------



As a statement of personal faith this is commendable and should be respected as such.

However .... the elephant in the proverbial Ecclesiastical room is the contradiction of New Testament teaching (as I understand it) with the degree of wealth many professed Christians (or Muslims, etc) retain and more importantly see no problem in doing so.

This comes from a chocolate box approach in adhering to the religious texts. I follow the tenets I like or that will not compromise my lifestyle and quietly ignore those that I do not like. You have the patently ridiculous situation where the head of the state church has a personal wealth measured in the hundreds of millions. You also have people like Rees-Mogg regular spouting Christian homilies while sitting on a net worth ~£100 million and actively offshoring as much as he can to avoid paying tax. These are a couple of high profile examples but there are many more.

To me, this does not seem consistent with the broad message of the New Testament. Some of the more Evangelical Christian sects try and ameliorate this by the requirement to tithe part of your income but as to whether these monies go directly to the needy is open to debate.

TL;DR extreme wealth seems incompatible with New Testament Christian teaching unless I missed the parable where Jesus helps the rich man exploit the poor and maximise his wealth in offshore investment vehicles

You’re not missing anything and I quite agree with you. All too often Christians end up compromising their faith and it’s usually the pursuit of wealth that lies behind it. Jesus teaching is very much at odds with this, and he went so far as to caution people that where their treasures were, there their heart would also be; that his disciples could not serve two masters, and when it comes to the pursuit of wealth or the pursuit of heaven it really is a matter of one or the other.

The church often does better in poorer parts of the world because the other part of Jesus teaching on this is to trust God to provide material needs and focus on seeking the righteousness of God. That is a little easier to do when you have no wealth to hoard and little chance of accruing any. The very early church, which was often persecuted, often consisted in local congregations who pooled their financial resources to the point where they effectively held everything in common ownership.

Believe it or not I stood up and preached a sermon on this this very morning. It’s from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew’s gospel, chapter 6.

---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

So you are content as a REAL Christian following the man who ended Mosaic Law and bought in the laws based on love to believe the God you follow is A. Going to allow Satan to survive? and B. Damn humans to eternal pain and suffering???

This is poor theological thinking. In the trade what you’re doing is called eisegesis - reading into the Biblical texts the things you wish were there, rather than the opposite (exegesis), which is to draw out of the text what is actually there.

God created beings with agency, i.e. with a personal will and the ability for self determination. It would be peculiar if having done so, he were to punish with abolition from existence any being that simply exercised their God-given will.

God is a God of mercy and also justice. Behaviour that falls short of his holiness makes it impossible for a being to endure his presence, but the death and resurrection of Jesus makes a way back possible. That’s mercy (and, incidentally, the only reason Jesus’ crucifixion isn’t an appalling piece of child sacrifice is because Jesus is fully God as well as fully man. He is the Son of God, but also God, which means the Cross was God’s idea and also God’s doing. He didn’t impose crucifixion on a third party, as would have been the case had Jesus been anyone else. Just one of the many reasons why Watchtower teaching is simply wrong. Without the Trinity, the Cross would be morally outrageous).

God is also just and ultimately will respect the wilfulness of those who choose to follow their own path. If you don’t want to be a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, then you won’t be. The only problem is, once you see it in all its glory, being excluded from it is an awful prospect. That, finally, is what hell is. To know that God in all his holiness is there, in a city which people can live in, but which you can never enter. For anyone interested, C S Lewis explored this in a novella called The Great Divorce. It’s well worth a read if you can find it in your local library.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

You’re not missing anything and I quite agree with you. All too often Christians end up compromising their faith and it’s usually the pursuit of wealth that lies behind it. Jesus teaching is very much at odds with this, and he went so far as to caution people that where their treasures were, there their heart would also be; that his disciples could not serve two masters, and when it comes to the pursuit of wealth or the pursuit of heaven it really is a matter of one or the other.

The church often does better in poorer parts of the world because the other part of Jesus teaching on this is to trust God to provide material needs and focus on seeking the righteousness of God. That is a little easier to do when you have no wealth to hoard and little chance of accruing any. The very early church, which was often persecuted, often consisted in local congregations who pooled their financial resources to the point where they effectively held everything in common ownership.

Believe it or not I stood up and preached a sermon on this this very morning. It’s from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew’s gospel, chapter 6.

---------- Post added at 15:11 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ----------



This is poor theological thinking. In the trade what you’re doing is called eisegesis - reading into the Biblical texts the things you wish were there, rather than the opposite (exegesis), which is to draw out of the text what is actually there.

God created beings with agency, i.e. with a personal will and the ability for self determination. It would be peculiar if having done so, he were to punish with abolition from existence any being that simply exercised their God-given will.

God is a God of mercy and also justice. Behaviour that falls short of his holiness makes it impossible for a being to endure his presence, but the death and resurrection of Jesus makes a way back possible. That’s mercy (and, incidentally, the only reason Jesus’ crucifixion isn’t an appalling piece of child sacrifice is because Jesus is fully God as well as fully man. He is the Son of God, but also God, which means the Cross was God’s idea and also God’s doing. He didn’t impose crucifixion on a third party, as would have been the case had Jesus been anyone else. Just one of the many reasons why Watchtower teaching is simply wrong. Without the Trinity, the Cross would be morally outrageous).

God is also just and ultimately will respect the wilfulness of those who choose to follow their own path. If you don’t want to be a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, then you won’t be. The only problem is, once you see it in all its glory, being excluded from it is an awful prospect. That, finally, is what hell is. To know that God in all his holiness is there, in a city which people can live in, but which you can never enter. For anyone interested, C S Lewis explored this in a novella called The Great Divorce. It’s well worth a read if you can find it in your local library.

Dude I never went to school to get a job in preaching so excuse me for not reaching your lofty standards

We are not going to agree and you are not going to "save" me from my faith. On that note I will draw a line under this thread as we are just going round in circles and it is doing neither of us any favours

[joglynne]

Originally Posted by ianch99

But surely by leaving behind a "hoard of possessions" they have arguably not left enough "footprints in other's lives"? One precludes the other when the size of the "hoard" is considerable.

There is no argument we all leave footprints but only some are worth following. Hoarding ones possessions is not something one can do if you care about others. Greed can never be an admirable legacy.

With that final comment I will leave this thread to those who enjoy these types of, I was going to say debate but over the last couple of days this thread seems to have brought out a less than tolerant side of some people who I previously thought I admired.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Dude I never went to school to get a job in preaching so excuse me for not reaching your lofty standards

We are not going to agree and you are not going to "save" me from my faith. On that note I will draw a line under this thread as we are just going round in circles and it is doing neither of us any favours

And yet you were the one who started espousing Watchtower theology in this thread. Nobody here was discussing Watchtower errors until you started posting them. The thread title isn’t even about the Watchtower Society, it’s about a Catholic who supposedly ‘admitted the Bible is BS’. With regards to Watchtower beliefs, all I and anyone else has done here is take up a direction of discussion that you yourself proposed.

I’m not here to out-argue you, but there’s no way I’m going to allow Watchtower errors to stand unchallenged. I’ve always participated fully in these discussions on this forum and I’ve said nothing here that I wouldn’t have said to you in person had you come to my door.

I’m sorry if that makes you feel you’re not up to some lofty standard, but I’m not sure what you think I’m meant to do about that? You make theological statements I believe to be profoundly false, I respond. That’s just how a debate works.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Dude I never went to school to get a job in preaching so excuse me for not reaching your lofty standards

We are not going to agree and you are not going to "save" me from my faith. On that note I will draw a line under this thread as we are just going round in circles and it is doing neither of us any favours

I do not think anyone is aiming to attack you on a personal level. It is just, and I confess I am not an expert here, that your particular brand of the Christian faith leaves itself open to criticism more than most.

I was reading up on this subject - here is one article: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Criticis...%27s_Witnesses and are a lot of valid points here. Here are a couple

- Coercion: Since 1920, the Watch Tower Society has required all congregation members participating in the preaching work to turn in written reports of the amount of their activity, explaining that the reports help the Society to plan its activities and identify areas of greater need and help congregation elders to identify those who may need assistance.
- Shunning: Witnesses practice disfellowshipping of members who unrepentantly engage in "gross sin" (most commonly for breaches of the Witnesses' code of personal morality), and "remorseless apostasy".

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Dude I never went to school to get a job in preaching so excuse me for not reaching your lofty standards

We are not going to agree and you are not going to "save" me from my faith. On that note I will draw a line under this thread as we are just going round in circles and it is doing neither of us any favours

[Russ]

There is a saying that comes to mind.
Something about stop digging when you're already deep in the hole.

[Jaymoss]

Not in a hole I have just been restrained and with 3 team members plus Damien a 4th with his bit on my case it is not safe for me to continue. I seen how this site works

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Not in a hole I have just been restrained and with 3 team members plus Damien a 4th with his bit on my case it is not safe for me to continue. I seen how this site works

Any participants being on the team had zero to do with anything here.
If that were the case you would have been kicked out of this thread long ago.

However, if you want to act like a prick and make baseless accusations then I can happily oblige and treat you like one - If thats how you think "the site works" then perhaps I should not disappoint you.