Is Jesus necessary?

[Timminz]

Whether or not believing in Jesus is a requirement for entry into heaven is entirely dependent on which believers' version of heaven you wish to believe you're trying to get into. As for my beliefs, all I need to get into heaven is an invitation from Hef.

[Aradhus]

Like it not, paragraphs of endless verbage are not needed to call your (and all) religions what they are. A trough of pig-slop mixed with something about fairy tales.

Yeah, this is what you keep saying, but have yet to produce any substantiating evidence for it.

You don't need to produce anything to prove religion is a pile of bunk. Religion, rather handily provides all the information anyone could ever need to disprove itself.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes. Religion is bunk.

Dawkins sez, k?

[Backglass]

Yes. Religion is bunk.

Dawkins sez, k?

No. Your eyes and ears "sez", if you are willing to actually open them honestly and cast off superstition.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes. Religion is bunk.

Dawkins sez, k?

No. Your eyes and ears "sez", if you are willing to actually open them honestly and cast off superstition.

Well, again, provide with the evidence that would refute say, the ontological and cosmological arguments, and I'd be happy to proclaim myself an atheist. Sadly for you, they're pretty solid, and much as I can respect (and, for mpjh's benefit, much as I'm sure God will respect) people who find them flawed and reject them, I have a firm belief in God rooted in reason. I am at heart a rationalist. So was the early Church. It's only a modern phenomenon really that we get protestant bastards feeding us their pseudo-existential Romantic bollocks.

[Backglass]

Well, again, provide with the evidence that would refute say, the ontological and cosmological arguments, and I'd be happy to proclaim myself an atheist. Sadly for you, they're pretty solid, and much as I can respect (and, for mpjh's benefit, much as I'm sure God will respect) people who find them flawed and reject them, I have a firm belief in God rooted in reason.

I seriously doubt you will ever change any of your ways/beliefs. It is plain to see you have been indoctrinated heavily since birth, it is all you know, and you will fight to the death for it. This much we know.

As for the ontological & cosmological arguments, neither provide proof of invisible god(s) either. I believe that the universe is infinite and has always been here. How about something as simple as a supernatural god that no one has ever seen or heard, that has the ability to supposedly do anything, yet does nothing? Oh, you have many religious (and often circular) arguments of "proof" alongside much anecdotal "evidence" I am sure. So did the Egyptians for their god Ra. Hey, at least they could SEE their god.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, again, provide with the evidence that would refute say, the ontological and cosmological arguments, and I'd be happy to proclaim myself an atheist. Sadly for you, they're pretty solid, and much as I can respect (and, for mpjh's benefit, much as I'm sure God will respect) people who find them flawed and reject them, I have a firm belief in God rooted in reason.

I seriously doubt you will ever change any of your ways/beliefs. It is plain to see you have been indoctrinated heavily since birth, it is all you know, and you will fight to the death for it. This much we know.

Really? And how do you know this? The extensive psychology you've studied at your "community college"?

As for the ontological & cosmological arguments, neither provide proof of invisible god(s) either.

Oh, and the mere fact that you, Backglass, have asserted this, means we should take it to be gospel truth, yah?

V. A reading from the Holy Red Book according to Backglass, 1st Chapter, beginning to read at the 1st Verse.
R. Thanks to you, Lord Richard Dawkins.
"Ontological/Cosmoligical arguments iz teh bollocks, nd iz teh winrar." - Here endeth the Lesson.
V. The Word of Backglass.
R.Thanks be to God.

I believe that the universe is infinite and has always been here. How about something as simple as a supernatural god that no one has ever seen or heard, that has the ability to supposedly do anything, yet does nothing? Oh, you have many religious (and often circular) arguments of "proof" alongside much anecdotal "evidence" I am sure. So did the Egyptians for their god Ra. Hey, at least they could SEE their god.

Yes... these so-called "logical" proofs for these things we can't see that the bastard religious people come up with every now and again. Bah! I spit on their "logic", and "reason".

[Backglass]

Really? And how do you know this? The extensive psychology you've studied at your "community college"?

No. I know this from your writings and constant barage of hate, bigotry and anger. The amount of hostility inside your head is palpable.

Why are you so angry?

Oh, and the mere fact that you, Backglass, have asserted this, means we should take it to be gospel truth, yah?

Oh, and the mere fact that primitive nomads wrote fables and stories means we should take it as the gospel truth, yah?

Yes... these so-called "logical" proofs for these things we can't see that the bastard religious people come up with every now and again. Bah! I spit on their "logic", and "reason".

For such a learned and brilliant man you profess to be, you still believe in invisible fairy's and angels? What sense does this make? Please continue. Prove to me your magical gods exists and I will be first in line for your cult rituals and out pray even you.

[Zeppflyer]

Depends. Catholic teaching is that (huge simplification) salvation is like a high school physics problem. Even f you don't get the answer exactly right, you still get credit for showing your works.

The terms are "invincible ignorance" (Opens self for comments on that from atheists) and "baptism by desire". That is; if you have not been exposed to Christianity or (there is debate on just how far this extends) if there has been overwhelming influence against your becoming a Christian, you get out under the ii clause because you could not have known the teachings of the Church. If you are in this state and still work to follow the dictates of your conscience and lead a good life, seaking God as best you can and doing good works you have been baptized by desire. That is, had you known about Christianity and Jesus you would have sought to be baptized and live accordingly.

So, depends. If you were raised Christian and were well taught (book learning and the example of other Christians) you have no excuse. A declaration of not believing in Christ is a breach with Him and a rejection of His salvation. If you were not raised well in the Faith, it is not necesarry for you to have ever specifically believed in Christ so long as you follow His general teachings.

[mpjh]

Interesting. You have explained the logic a Catholic might use to believe that a non-christian could earn heaven without a commitment to Jesus. But that my not be what drove the answers to the poll, although it does enlighten.

I suspect that many Christians take and even more common sense approach and say that if a person is good in life, regardless their knowledge, they earn heaven.

[brooksieb]

Yeah, this is what you keep saying, but have yet to produce any substantiating evidence for it.

And neither have those that believe in such supernatural creatures.

Religion isn't about supernatural creatures, your' missing the point there, religion is about morales and how to live your' life, many people like Mohandas Gandhi have took morales and lifestyles of christianity though they may not actually be christian, Dawkins is a idiot who is a hypocrite, he claims he does not waste his breath on christians but he uses every chance he he gets to belittle them, odd isn't it, a bit like a extremist.

[Napoleon Ier]

Interesting. You have explained the logic a Catholic might use to believe that a non-christian could earn heaven without a commitment to Jesus. But that my not be what drove the answers to the poll, although it does enlighten.

I suspect that many Christians take and even more common sense approach and say that if a person is good in life, regardless their knowledge, they earn heaven.

That's what I've been trying to explain to you all thread you mong.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yeah, this is what you keep saying, but have yet to produce any substantiating evidence for it.

And neither have those that believe in such supernatural creatures.

Religion isn't about supernatural creatures, your' missing the point there, religion is about morales and how to live your' life, many people like Mohandas Gandhi have took morales and lifestyles of christianity though they may not actually be christian, Dawkins is a idiot who is a hypocrite, he claims he does not waste his breath on christians but he uses every chance he he gets to belittle them, odd isn't it, a bit like a extremist.

Yes, he also says he doesn't believe in God based on his belief of Physics being about to bring him the answer to the cosmological problem... a belief founded, one might say, on Faith?

[Backglass]

Religion isn't about supernatural creatures, your' missing the point there,

It's not? So you don't believe in a gods, devils, angels or demons then?

religion is about morales and how to live your' life,

No, that's just being a good person. Cults and Religions are not required to live a good, moral life. Although I admit the latter does seem to help some who can't seem to get their shit together any other way.

many people like Mohandas Gandhi have took morales and lifestyles of christianity though they may not actually be christian,

Wow, that's a stretch. So Ghandi was a non-jesus believing closet christian?

Dawkins is a idiot who is a hypocrite, he claims he does not waste his breath on christians but he uses every chance he he gets to belittle them, odd isn't it, a bit like a extremist.

He certainly can be harsh. But if we are going to point at the ends of the spectrum I would say the same of every evangelical or charismatic christian I have ever seen or heard.

[Yes, he also says he doesn't believe in God based on his belief of Physics being about to bring him the answer to the cosmological problem... a belief founded, one might say, on Faith?

Faith in nothing? Absence of a Duck, is not a Duck.

[Napoleon Ier]

Faith in an as-yet non-existent discovery being about to be made is a Faith in something.

Or perhaps an incessant denial of the "absence of a plane hitting the pentagon", say, is not Faith even if not based on evidence?

[mpjh]

nonsense

Faith is important to people because it gives hope in something better. Science is a tool people can use tho make something better.

[brooksieb]

It's not? So you don't believe in a gods, devils, angels or demons then?

I believe in God, i don't believe in the devil, i don't believe in demons though there are some very evil people on this earth, i don't believe in angels though saying that there are some very nice people on this earth.
_______________________________________________________________________________

No, that's just being a good person. Cults and Religions are not required to live a good, moral life. Although I admit the latter does seem to help some who can't seem to get their shit together any other way.

No, one of the many reasons religion was based was to show a alternative for people on how to live there life, you don't have to follow them it is just a recommendation, that being said our law code that says what you can and can't do is based on the 10 commandments, laid down by religion.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Wow, that's a stretch. So Ghandi was a non-jesus believing closet christian?

No, he just took christianity's original "non-violence" approach and succeeded in defeating one of the most powerful, or if not most powerful empire in history using non violence, Jesus being one of his inspirations, he also appealed the caste system opting for a liberal christian view of equality, you don't have to be a christian to follow christian morales.
_______________________________________________________________________________
He certainly can be harsh. But if we are going to point at the ends of the spectrum I would say the same of every evangelical or charismatic christian I have ever seen or heard.

But he tries to convert people based on double standards, i'm not saying all athiests are extremists or all christians are extremists just he is a extremist that relies on double standards.

[Backglass]

Religion isn't about supernatural creatures

It's not? So you don't believe in a gods, devils, angels or demons then?

I believe in God

Your god IS a supernatural creature.

But he tries to convert people based on double standards, i'm not saying all athiests are extremists or all christians are extremists just he is a extremist that relies on double standards.

I don't think Richard Dawkins is out trying to "convert" anyone like some street corner preacher. I have one of his books and enjoyed it (no surprise there. ) but I am not a "follower" of him any more than I am a "follower" of Stephen King who's books I also enjoy. When asked to speak on TV, etc about his book and views, he does.

What are these double standards you believe him to rely on?

[Napoleon Ier]

nonsense

Hooray! A bald assertion substantiated by, you guessed it, nothing whatsoever. And this time, he couldn't even be bother to string his pseudo-argument into a proper sentence in the English language.

What you're trying to argue is as stupid as saying that it's perfectly rational to "not" believe something, whatever that something may be. So, by that logic, I could for no reason whatsoever deny the existence of the keyboard I'm typing on and I'd be perfectly philosophically justified in doing so.

Now, you can either post a logical rebuttal that outlines the reason for which the distinction between positive and negative formulations of a belief are anything more than semantic, or you can shut up and start arguing about something else.

Look, the sooner you accept how horribly wrong you are, and how severely you're going to get your face battered trying to pick a fight with me, the sooner we can all move on to doing something rather more productive. As it is, it's almost painful to watch you get systematically dismantled by yours truly every single time you post some ridiculous claim, get universally derided for it, then respond with boorish one-word responses that are frankly making everyone cringe.

[Backglass]

Look, the sooner you accept how horribly wrong you are, and how severely you're going to get your face battered trying to pick a fight with me, the sooner we can all move on to doing something rather more productive. As it is, it's almost painful to watch you get systematically dismantled by yours truly every single time you post some ridiculous claim, get universally derided for it, then respond with boorish one-word responses that are frankly making everyone cringe.

You really believe your own rhetoric don't you. I have yet to see any "face battering" or "systematic dismantling" from you angry-boy, yet you pompously stand in the winners circle of your own making and pound your chest in victory.

The painful display is all yours. Everyone is cringing, that much is true.

[Napoleon Ier]

Look, the sooner you accept how horribly wrong you are, and how severely you're going to get your face battered trying to pick a fight with me, the sooner we can all move on to doing something rather more productive. As it is, it's almost painful to watch you get systematically dismantled by yours truly every single time you post some ridiculous claim, get universally derided for it, then respond with boorish one-word responses that are frankly making everyone cringe.

You really believe your own rhetoric don't you. I have yet to see any "face battering" or "systematic dismantling" from you angry-boy, yet you pompously stand in the winners circle of your own making and pound your chest in victory.

I'm sorry to hear it, maybe if you pick up any decent primer on basic theology from a good bookseller's, of which I'm happy to recommend many, you could pick up intellectual baggage necessary to understand the theology I've been discussing.

Better still, you could respond to it with actual arguments.

You know, have one of those "productive debates" you've heard so much about...

[Backglass]

maybe if you pick up any decent primer on basic theology from a good bookseller's, of which I'm happy to recommend many, you could pick up intellectual baggage necessary to understand the theology I've been discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your eyes and ears and used your brain, casting off the superstitions & rituals force-fed you since birth, you wouldn't need your stacks of religious textbooks just to explain away the fallacy of a magical, invisible super being.

Pro Tip: Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it real.

[Napoleon Ier]

maybe if you pick up any decent primer on basic theology from a good bookseller's, of which I'm happy to recommend many, you could pick up intellectual baggage necessary to understand the theology I've been discussing.

Perhaps if you opened your eyes and ears and used your brain, casting off the superstitions & rituals force-fed you since birth, you wouldn't need your stacks of religious textbooks just to explain away the fallacy of a magical, invisible super being.

Pro Tip: Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it real.

So, in other words, you've never approached a serious study of subject in your lifetime, and hence have a need to regurgitate the same, tired old recycled insults you once heard Richard Dawkins use on TV, rather than respond to an argument on the substance.

Oh and, hey, Backglass:

Pro Tip: just because you ignore it, doesn't make it not real.

[rob8888]

I think the bible is pretty clear on who can get to heaven. The main point of the bible is a lot of shlak about how you can only be saved through Jesus and for all of the preaching about how forgiving Jesus is, he doesn't really seem to show it that much. I didn't read all nine pages of this topic, so if this has already been said, I'm sorry.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think the bible is pretty clear on who can get to heaven. The main point of the bible is a lot of shlak about how you can only be saved through Jesus and for all of the preaching about how forgiving Jesus is, he doesn't really seem to show it that much. I didn't read all nine pages of this topic, so if this has already been said, I'm sorry.

Actually, it's very much unclear. Which is why we have the Holy Mother Church, far more clear on the subject.