[SkyRider]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

And you aren't you pre-judging others just because they have a different set of beliefs?

It is very simple; those that reject the Lord Jesus Christ will burn in Hell for eternity.

[Eight or Better]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Reason 12:
Atheists support gay marriages yet also believe in evolution (and have the nerve to call it natural selection!) They are too stupid to see the paradox.

Reason 13:
Atheists think is makes sense to give wheelchair retards the best parking spaces even though the lazy cripples don't even have to walk.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

But the secretaries boss isn't a divine being and what happens if they hear something wrong ?

God is an all powerful being. It is impossible that his secretaries would hear something wrong.

So Adam and Eve had lots of children. Did those children then begat each other to create more children ? There is no mention of any other humans but their own off spring.

God told them to have babies and then they grew up to have babies with each other which is incest.

I just finished explaining this in another thread.

So Percy seems to like insults.

1. You are judging an entire community on the actions of one person.
2. There's a difference between insulting and putting the truth bluntly. Was Jesus insulting people when he said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

A "behemoth" could be anything and completely open to interpretation.

The hebrew meaning is "large animal" or "meaning beast" so they could elephants, rhinos, oxs, giraffes or any other large animal by their standard.

It could also be a dinosaur, but you seem to want to dismiss that possibility out of hand.

It could not have been an ox, because the Bible says, "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." That wouldn't make any sense if the behemoth and the ox were the same animal.

A "leviathan" could be a blue whale, killer whale, squid or any other large sea creature. It does explicitly mention the the creature is a "dinosaur"

Of course it doesn't. Why would you expect a book translated in 1611 to use a word that wasn't coined until 1841?

I noticed you didn't have any handy atheist apologetics for the mention of dragons in the Bible. The original Hebrew word tanniyn refers to any marine or land monster, so that one can clearly refer to dinosaurs.

And you aren't you pre-judging others just because they have a different set of beliefs ?

Not at all, friend. There's a difference between judging someone and warning them about God's impending wrath. The Bible tells us that non believers are going to Hell, so how am I judging them by warning them of that fact?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[James Peter]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Reason 14:

They reject the authority of the Pope, and our therefor doomed to hell.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Reason 14:

They reject the authority of the Pope,

Wrong thread. That goes under why atheists aren't as bad as Catholics.

and our therefor doomed to hell.

That doesn't follow. Where does the Bible say that refusing to accept authority from some dress-wearing politician is grounds for damnation in Hell?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[LoveThatGod]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Reason 12:
Atheists ... also believe in evolution (and have the nerve to call it natural selection!) They are too stupid to see the paradox.

Actually, they don't. Natural selection is a mechanism of the process of evolution. Another mechanism is sexual selection. In any case, I don't really see how that's a paradox. Please elaborate.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Actually, they don't. Natural selection is a mechanism of the process of evolution. Another mechanism is sexual selection. In any case, I don't really see how that's a paradox. Please elaborate.

If this mechanism is true please explain the

1. The survial of stupid and ugly races people
2. Why humans aren't perfect
3. Why we are willing to do abortions.

[LoveThatGod]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

If this mechanism is true please explain the

1. The survial of stupid and ugly races people
2. Why humans aren't perfect
3. Why we are willing to do abortions.

1. For starters, do you think God would consider these people "stupid and ugly"? The reasons could be many. They could survive because there are no predators around to kill them. They could survive because some people may like stupid and ugly and thus would procreate with them. They could survive because maybe they don't see each other as ugly. Etc.

2. Why should we be? Who says natural selection or other mechanisms of evolution are perfect? Maybe we eventually will be? Etc.

3. The survival of the mother, selfishness, stupidity, perhaps to kill off offspring of people who shouldn't be mating, and so on.

[James Peter]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Wrong thread. That goes under why atheists aren't as bad as Catholics.


That doesn't follow. Where does the Bible say that refusing to accept authority from some dress-wearing politician is grounds for damnation in Hell?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Considering how you lot wholly reject Catholicism, I'd say you are all practically atheists yourselves.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Considering how you lot wholly reject Catholicism, I'd say you are all practically atheists yourselves.

But the Pope is nothing like Peter. For starters, why isn't your dress-wearing sodomite false idol allowed to marry, when Peter was?

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Why would you think of the Pope as a Master and a Father, when God specifically tells you not to do this?


Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

Matthew 16: 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Yes, Jesus told Peter that he would play a key role in building His church. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with your dress-wearing politician in Rome. There is nothing that establishes apostolic succession or papal infallibility.

Again, I must request that you use our site's search feature before embarrassing yourself by trotting out worn-out arguments that have been debunked before. You aren't the first Papist to try to show up here trying to debate us, and I'm sure you won't be the last to leave with your tail between your legs once you realize that we already know all your lies.

Catholicism is nothing but Roman paganism coated with a thin veneer of Christianity, invented hundreds of years after Christ, as a calculated political move by Emperor Constantine, the first Pontifex Maximus. It is with him that your "apostolic succession" begins. Real Christians were persecuted (along with several kooky gnostic sects) but real Christianity still managed to survive to this day.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[James Peter]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

But the Pope is nothing like Peter. For starters, why isn't your dress-wearing sodomite false idol allowed to marry, when Peter was?

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Why would you think of the Pope as a Master and a Father, when God specifically tells you not to do this?


Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

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

Fundamentalist attacks on priestly celibacy come in a number of different forms—not all compatible with one another. There is almost no other subject about which so many different confusions exist.

The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.

These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

unmarried priests may not marry

1Tim 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Begone, demon.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Brother Temperance]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages.

Why would they do that? If it had any backing in God's word (which it doesn't), then people would have been doing it since Biblical times; the fact that you just started doing it in the Middle Ages is proof that you're just making this gibberish up as you go along. You're basically just wiccans with a longer history.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule.

Because it has nothing to do with Christianity. Either the Godly Institution of Marriage is a good thing, or it isn't.

[James Peter]

Re: 101 reasons why Atheists are WRONG !!!

1Tim 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Begone, demon.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403chap.asp

Forbidding marriage?

To the first charge: Does the Catholic Church forbid marriage? Not at all. It forbids marriage to no one.

The charge could hardly be more absurd since the Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament. In the Catholic view, marriage is a great blessing; it is simply not for everyone. Some may renounce marriage for purposes of religion. Christ himself indicated this when he said that some "have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). [In context, Christ may mean those who have refused to remarry lest they commit adultery (see Matt. 19:9-11), but the principle applies in other contexts as well. Some people, for the sake of the kingdom, refuse to marry and raise a family.].

This was a practice even in the Old Testament. God told the prophet Jeremiah not to take a wife and have children (Jer. 16:1-4) since doing so would be inconsistent with the turbulent ministry to which God was calling him. In Jeremiah we find a parallel to a modern priest, a man who refrains from marrying and having a family in order to free himself to fulfill the demands of ministry.

This was not a pattern restricted to the Old Testament. Paul counsels people to refrain from marrying. He says, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. . . . I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.

"And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit, but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . [H]e who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor. 7:1-2, 6-9, 32-35, 38).

Paul regards marriage as an option, but not always the preferable one, since married people have divided interests that hinder them from being wholeheartedly devoted to the Lord. In 2 Timothy 2:3-4 he applies this insight directly to full-time ministers. He tells his apprentice Timothy, "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him." Timothy is told that he must share in suffering by not participating in "civilian pursuits," such as marrying and having a family, in order to pursue his calling as a soldier of Jesus Christ and a full-time minister of the gospel.

Elsewhere in Paul we find the idea of a vow of celibacy which commits a person to a life of continence. In 1Timothy 5 Paul says, "Honor widows who are real widows. . . . She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. . . . Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and she must be well attested for her good deeds, as one who has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, relieved the afflicted, and devoted herself to doing good in every way. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (1 Tim. 5:3, 5, 9-12).

Paul here describes an order of widows, supported by the Church, who are known for prayer, relief for the sick, devotion to doing good, and their pledge of celibacy. This order has the same underlying principles as a modern order of nuns, a group of women who have taken vows to lead a celibate life of serving God. There is even biblical precedent for orders of contemplative nuns. They follow the example of Anna, the prophetess who "did not depart from the Temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day" (Luke 2:37).

Is the organization of widows Paul provided for just a loose association of women who could enter or leave the roll of widows at their discretion? No. Paul says not to enroll younger widows because, being subject to "youthful passions" (2 Tim. 2:22), they desire to marry and "incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge." When they were enrolled on the list of widows, they took a pledge not to marry. Before this they were free to marry, but on entering the roll they committed to live as "unmarried women ... anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit" (1 Cor. 7:34).

The New Testament tells of a vow of celibacy--a formal commitment to lead the single life--and Paul incorporates it into his regulations for the order of proto-nuns he discusses in 1Timothy 5. Ironically, this vow of celibacy is mentioned in 1 Timothy 5, just a chapter after the "doctrines of demons" passage in 1 Timothy 4!

Further proof that the Catholic practice of ministerial celibacy is not what Paul is discussing in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 is that the people who are forbidding marriage in that passage are teaching it as a doctrine, but Catholics regard priestly celibacy only as a discipline. Catholics freely admit that nothing in the Bible or apostolic Tradition requires ministers to be celibate; it is simply a good idea, as Paul indicates. The Catholic Church's requirement that its (Western rite) ministers take Paul's advice and be celibate is in principle like a Protestant denomination's requirement that its ministers have a seminary degree--something Protestants do not because they think the Bible requires it, but because it is a good idea.

Only the Latin or Western rite (the largest rite in the Church) requires celibacy. The other (Eastern) rites of the Church do not require celibacy and have married priests. Even the Latin rite makes exceptions to its policy: If a married minister from a denomination such as Lutheranism or Anglicanism becomes Catholic, he may be allowed to be ordained as a priest.

The Latin rite could, should the pope become convinced that it is necessary, rescind the discipline of celibacy, but it is not likely that this will occur in the near future, [Contrary to the view of some, the current priest shortage in the developed world is not caused by the celibacy requirement, for even the eastern rites, which do not require celibacy, suffer from it] for great good has come to the Church as a result of the policy (a fact anti-Catholics never mention).[There have even been benefits the apostle Paul does not discuss, such as preventing a caste-system developing in Europe during the middle ages by the creation of a priestly class in which the father's occupation was passed on from father to son, as was the practice in medieval society in general. Because of celibacy, priests did not pass on their positions, and the priesthood was open to men of every class. There were even popes who started life as the sons of peasants.]. In any event, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry, although the Church does say, in the Latin rite, that a man volunteering to be ordained also is expected to volunteer to remain celibate. And if he wants to marry? Then he can do so, without pursuing the priestly vocation.