and you believe this?

Originally posted by galveston75
God has allowed man to decide how we view him and how we do our worship but that does not mean it is all correct and that he accepts it. History has proved that most of the time humans do not not worship him correctly and has only dealt with a smaller portion of ones that have worshipped him in a way he accepts. So to think that such a large group such a ...[text shortened]... or whoever is doing things right means nothing. Only a few get thru the "narrow gate to life".

But none of that addresses the points under discussion. Does any of what you have said excuse making up lies about the Catholics? Does any of it prove what you have said so far about the Catholics?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But none of that addresses the points under discussion. Does any of what you have said excuse making up lies about the Catholics? Does any of it prove what you have said so far about the Catholics?

What lies have I said about the Catholics or any other religion?

Originally posted by galveston75
What lies have I said about the Catholics or any other religion?

My apologies. I did not intend to call you a liar. I was intending to refer to the original poster in this thread, and the recent comments by seer.
My point was that both of them told outright lies about the Catholics and I think anyone regardless of their religion or lack there of, would be correct to come to their defense.
My second question was addressed more specifically to your own posts. You and Conrau K were having a discussion about the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, and instead of supporting your arguments you go off on a tangent about how God must be worshiped correctly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies. I did not intend to call you a liar. I was intending to refer to the original poster in this thread, and the recent comments by seer.
My point was that both of them told outright lies about the Catholics and I think anyone regardless of their religion or lack there of, would be correct to come to their defense.
My second question was addr ...[text shortened]... of supporting your arguments you go off on a tangent about how God must be worshiped correctly.

Thanks, apology appreciated. No I was trying to respond to Conrau and to help him see that it is extremly important to worship God in the way that he accepts and the importance of that because he has mentioned a few times that it really not important wether one believes in the trinity or not.
Again he tells us to worship him with truth. Even such a familiar scripture as the one that says "a little leven fermits the whole lump" really does mean something that we should take seriously.

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks, apology appreciated. No I was trying to respond to Conrau and to help him see that it is extremly important to worship God in the way that he accepts and the importance of that because he has mentioned a few times that it really not important wether one believes in the trinity or not.

Thanks for the explanation. It makes more sense now. Initially it looked like you were simply trying to go off on a side tack to avoid the actual issues (an overly popular tactic in this forum.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thanks for the explanation. It makes more sense now. Initially it looked like you were simply trying to go off on a side tack to avoid the actual issues (an overly popular tactic in this forum.)

Thanks.... Changing topics in mid stream happens too much as you say but I'm sure I've done that accidently too.

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks, apology appreciated. No I was trying to respond to Conrau and to help him see that it is extremly important to worship God in the way that he accepts and the importance of that because he has mentioned a few times that it really not important wether one believes in the trinity or not.
Again he tells us to worship him with truth. Even such a fa ...[text shortened]... little leven fermits the whole lump" really does mean something that we should take seriously.

The fact is, however, you have lied about Catholicism. You have claimed Catholics believe that the Pope to be 'God on earth'; that Mary forgives sins; that Jesus is not the only mediator; and that a person must 'pray through a priest' in order to be saved. Catholics do not believe anything of the sort and I seriously doubt your protestations that Catholics themselves have told you this. You have claimed that Catholics worship Mary and the saints, as well as idols, without ever explaining what constitutes worship or idolatry. Catholics do not believe they worship idols.

Beyond that, you have committed atrocious historiographical errors. You have, for example, said that the Pope's mitre derives from the cult of Dagon (even though the origin of the mitre is some hundreds of years after the cult of Dagon.) You have also maintained that the Trinity has a pagan origin, yet the only historical evidence adduced comes from very dubious sources -- predominantly Christian fundamentalists who naturally have a bias against Catholicism and who have manifestly lack academic qualifications. How you expect me to give any credence to these websites I do not know.

It is highly patronising, then, for you to claim that you are only trying to instruct me about the proper worship of God. No doubt every Catholic wants to worship God properly. I can't imagine any Catholic saying to himself 'We don't need to worship properly' and it is totally egregious and arrogant that you tell me so as if you are some spiritual director.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The fact is, however, you have lied about Catholicism. You have claimed Catholics believe that the Pope to be 'God on earth'; that Mary forgives sins; that Jesus is not the only mediator; and that a person must 'pray through a priest' in order to be saved. Catholics do not believe anything of the sort and I seriously doubt your protestations that Catholics ...[text shortened]... tally egregious and arrogant that you tell me so as if you are some spiritual director.

Soooooo, why are you defending a religion if you have turned your back on God? Just makes no sense.
The reason I've claimed those things Conrau is as I've mentioned before is that "hundreds of thousands of JW's are ex Catholics". I'll repeat that again, "hundreds of thousands of JW's are ex Catholics".
And they do speak about the teachings they were taught by the church and all of the things I have quoted are from them. Maybe your particular experiance and things taught to you were different which would make sense as all the ex Catholics say it was so. No uniformity. I have shown you proof that the Catholics in the Latin countries do many things differently then the ones say in Europe. SO the proof is there wether you like it or not.
And again history shows where the trinity beliefs came from. Anyone with a willingness to open their eyes can see more proof then you'd ever want. You obviously don't.
And I agree that no doubt most people of any religion wants to do things corectly when worshipping God. But many religions and the Catholics are at the top, burden down there flock with so many outrages customs and rituals and lasw and formalities..they have no idea what the Bible by itself says. Did Jesus not condemn that in his time on earth? So why is it ok for a religion to do that now?

Originally posted by galveston75
Soooooo, why are you defending a religion if you have turned your back on God? Just makes no sense.

Why is this attitude so common amongst Christians? Surely it is only right to defend the wronged? Everybody knows that and even Jesus advocated it. Yet you act surprised that anyone would do it for anything other than personal benefit.
In all my time on these forums, I have noticed that it is extremely rare that a Christian will ever criticize someone whose arguments are complete nonsense, but whose conclusions are desirable to the Christian.

And they do speak about the teachings they were taught by the church and all of the things I have quoted are from them.
And don't you think they would be the least reliable witnesses?

And again history shows where the trinity beliefs came from. Anyone with a willingness to open their eyes can see more proof then you'd ever want.
Then you should have no problem providing some evidence. Don't make the error of assuming that because a lot of people in your Church have said something that it is true. Find at least one article in a peer reviewed magazine that supports your claim.

Originally posted by galveston75
Soooooo, why are you defending a religion if you have turned your back on God? Just makes no sense.
The reason I've claimed those things Conrau is as I've mentioned before is that "hundreds of thousands of JW's are ex Catholics". I'll repeat that again, "hundreds of thousands of JW's are ex Catholics".
And they do speak about the teachings they wer not condemn that in his time on earth? So why is it ok for a religion to do that now?

Soooooo, why are you defending a religion if you have turned your back on God? Just makes no sense.

I believe I have already explained my motivation. I am interested in historical accuracy and I abhor misrepresentation. I also have a particular dislike for anti-Catholicism. People like you and Seer are not a minority among Protestants. I have heard other Christians report that Catholics have told them they think Mary to be a second God. I doubt them as much as you.

I also think it loathesome that you say I have turned my back on God. Again, you appoint yourself as some kind of spiritual director diagnosing the state of my soul and second-guessing my intentions. As a fact, my atheism was not a deliberate rejection of God. It is my own personal spiritual struggle and your judgementalism is quite objectionable in this case.

And they do speak about the teachings they were taught by the church and all of the things I have quoted are from them.

I can guarantee that the Church did not teach them any thing of the sort. They have either misunderstood or, in fact, never known their religion in the first place. It is actually quite common. I have a friend from a good Catholic family. He met a Christian group later in high school and later claimed that as a Catholic he had been taught that the Pope was infallible in everything he said. The fact is that his recollection of his Catholicism and what he had been taught was a post hoc memory which a Protestant group had imposed on him. I know for a fact that papal infallibility was never taught to him.

Maybe your particular experiance and things taught to you were different which would make sense as all the ex Catholics say it was so.

Probably my experiences have been different. Nonetheless, I know for a fact that hundreds of thousands of Catholics were never taught anything which you have credited. As I have said before, if you want to say Catholics believe such and such, you have to cite the catechism rather than anonymous quotes from putative Catholics you have met.

I have shown you proof that the Catholics in the Latin countries do many things differently then the ones say in Europe. SO the proof is there wether you like it or not.

Yes, I know. And I have explained that. Each country has different devotional practices. If you actually bothered to research this, you would find that the Pope actually encourages this. This, as I have explained, does not demonstrate a difference in dogma, only liturgy.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Soooooo, why are you defending a religion if you have turned your back on God? Just makes no sense.

I believe I have already explained my motivation. I am interested in historical accuracy and I abhor misrepresentation. I also have a particular dislike for anti-Catholicism. People like you and Seer are not a minority among Protestants. I have hear ...[text shortened]... rages this. This, as I have explained, does not demonstrate a difference in dogma, only liturgy.[/b]

edit: "As a fact, my atheism was not a deliberate rejection of God. It is my own personal spiritual struggle..."



It would be my privilege to share your thoughts regarding your decision to reconsider so deeply and to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Be well Conrau K😵

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "As a fact, my atheism was not a deliberate rejection of God. It is my own personal spiritual struggle..."



It would be my privilege to share your thoughts regarding your decision to reconsider so deeply and to re-evaluate your beliefs.
Be well Conrau K😵

Well, I have been constributing to this forum for the last six years and my beliefs have wildly oscillated between extremes. When I first entered this forum, I was quite a committed proponent of intelligent design, passionately arguing that the eye was too functionally complex to result from natural selection. In fact, I clearly remember someone arguing back at me that non-subscribers should be banned from forums. After then, I rapidly turned to atheism, then reverted back to a moderate Catholicism, back to atheism, and so on.

I can't really say that at any point my conversion was ever the result of a dispassionate re-evaluation of my beliefs. In fact, I think such an account of any conversion experience would be naive. I think when we discuss faith and atheism, we tend to neglect the role of emotion and affectivity. When I identify as a Christian, it is because of a great feeling of fervour. I feel an intense amount of joy. When I am atheist, it is generally because of an absence of these feelings. I have to admit that a large part of my beliefs is based on my emotions.

That's not so say, though, that evidence and reason have no role. I am not saying that my, or anyone's, beliefs are the result of mere whim. Belief is not volitional. Reflecting on my experiences, I find that when I am fervent, I still require evidence to substantiate my beliefs. It is just that I am more leniently disposed to favourable evidence. When I am an atheist, I am simply more skeptical and cautious. Evidence is still essential -- it is just that affectivity influences how I evaluate the quality of evidence. Possibly I will once again feel fervent and convert back to Catholicism. I don't know. At the moment, I can only say that I am very skeptical about theism.

Thanks for inviting me to share my story by the way. I hope that it gives some like Galvo a better insight into atheism. There is no deliberate, volitive decision to become an atheist, at least in my experience. I would characterise the whole process as rather passive.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I have been constributing to this forum for the last six years and my beliefs have wildly oscillated between extremes. When I first entered this forum, I was quite a committed proponent of intelligent design, passionately arguing that the eye was too functionally complex to result from natural selection. In fact, I clearly remember someone arguing bac ...[text shortened]... theist, at least in my experience. I would characterise the whole process as rather passive.

I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
May you be happy and perfectly balanced on your true nature😵

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I have been constributing to this forum for the last six years and my beliefs have wildly oscillated between extremes. When I first entered this forum, I was quite a committed proponent of intelligent design, passionately arguing that the eye was too functionally complex to result from natural selection. In fact, I clearly remember someone arguing bac theist, at least in my experience. I would characterise the whole process as rather passive.

Rec'd. Doubt is always a good sign as it usually means you are open to new evidence/information and are not blind to it by unwavering conviction.

Originally posted by Conrau K
When I first entered this forum, I was quite a committed proponent of intelligent design, passionately arguing that the eye was too functionally complex to result from natural selection.

Did you now understand natural selection well enough to see that they eye could have evolved, or is that still an unresolved puzzle for you? Did you at the time find the arguments presented by those supporting evolution clear enough to understand?