Christianity, hypocrisy in its attacks on others

Yes they did believe in Sheol as a place of mourning and punishment.

Originally posted by Marxman
Well then fcuk following the rules. If hell isn't all that bad I'll take a lifetime of enjoyment and an eternity of an uncomfortable temperature over a lifetime of worrying if I'm pleasing a god then an eternity of constantly worshiping this god.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes they did believe in Sheol as a place of mourning and punishment.
No it still sucks, you just don't get eternity in a Paradise, instead you are utterly destroyed.

ALL PRAISE THE LORD !

Destruction ain't even bad when you think about. I hold that it is far better than letting people like Hitler into Heaven.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Destruction ain't even bad when you think about. I hold that it is far better than letting people like Hitler into Heaven.

I agree...for people like Hitler, death is a merciful punishment...

But since according to modern Evangelism, all who do not beleive will go to Hell, you can't say that we are all equal to Hitler and deserve the same punishment as he....

Have you ever thought that punishment is proportional? Sheol precedes the lake of fire (ie. destruction) and seems to be a place of personal reflection that makes one realize their sins. Since I assume you have done less than Hitler (I know I'm taking a pretty big leap of faith saying that) your time in Sheol shouldn't be nearly as bad.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Have you ever thought that punishment is proportional? Sheol precedes the lake of fire (ie. destruction) and seems to be a place of personal reflection that makes one realize their sins. Since I assume you have done less than Hitler (I know I'm taking a pretty big leap of faith saying that) your time in Sheol shouldn't be nearly as bad.

OH..so you mean I would only get one pineapple shoved up my ass, while he gets 20 pineapples shoved up his ass ?

😆 😆 😂 😆 😂

Then we both get destroyed..... 😬

Besides, ur assertion is not Biblically supported...according to the Bible, all in Hell shall gnash thier teeth, curse the lord, suffer unbearable torment, then be obliterated in the Second Death in the Lake of Gaheena...

What a merciful God we have ! 🙄

Your God will burn and destroy me because I am Gay and Atheist....

No, it is Biblically supported. I thought we went over it with a bunch of verses and whatnot. Anyways, gnashing of teeth has various meanings not the least of which is the expression of pain and sorrow.

Oh and I no longer use the word 'hell' because it is misleading and confuses people. Sheol/Hades and the Lake of Fire are the terms we should use when discussing 'hell'.

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, it is Biblically supported. I thought we went over it with a bunch of verses and whatnot. Anyways, gnashing of teeth has various meanings not the least of which is the expression of pain and sorrow.

Oh and I no longer use the word 'hell' because it is misleading and confuses people. Sheol/Hades and the Lake of Fire are the terms we should use when discussing 'hell'.

Why did you ignore my last statement ?

Why did you not address my response?
But so as not to dodge you: the homosexual factor is not definite in salvation although it is a sin, the atheism is the determining aspect. By denying God you are indirectly stating that you don't want the salvation that's reward is heaven.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why did you not address my response?
But so as not to dodge you: the homosexual factor is not definite in salvation although it is a sin, the atheism is the determining aspect. By denying God you are indirectly stating that you don't want the salvation that's reward is heaven.

Whether I am a believer or not is entirely conditional, but whether I am bisexual or not isn't. I am bisexual, always have been, always will be, and nothing will change that. I truly beleive it is part of my mental and physical make up, just as much as my race is.

Whether I beleive in God or not, I will always be a bisexual person, will this somehow inhibit my "salvation" ?

Oh, and I ignored your last response, because it is simply your intepretation of the bible, and is in no way more correct than my own.

I've read and trusted in the bible for years thank you very much...i know what it says, and nothing you have said convinces me that your intrepretations and assertions are factual. They are simply your take on the Bible, and in no way more valid than Regret's, Feceman's, Marcello's, or even my own.

Although it would seem that the one I am presenting to you has the most Biblically backing and is supported by Feceman if I remember correctly.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Although it would seem that the one I am presenting to you has the most Biblically backing and is supported by Feceman if I remember correctly.

Feceman also argues that Homosexuality is not a sin....what say you ? 😉

That it is a sin, although Feceman and I have never discussed it.

To think of it, why and what would it be a sin..it is just a biological physical action.

Originally posted by Regret

*I believe in the Bible and the claims of Christianity, but my purpose with this thread is to show the hypocritical nature of Christianity when attacking the validity of beliefs they disagree with. As such, I will not respond to the attacks with my rebuttal due to the fact that I want the mainstream Christian response, not my own.

I feel that this should be mentioned only for the purpose of argument. Catholics do not make up the "whole" Christian aspect (i.e. Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic). Further more it is a strict teaching of toleration that no other religion comes as the scape goat, heated criticism, or even under prejudiced persecution. The Catholic Church rather supports other religions be them moral, just, and founded on love, but reserves to hold of the opinion that it is the one true church.

Originally posted by AOR
I feel that this should be mentioned only for the purpose of argument. Catholics do not make up the "whole" Christian aspect (i.e. Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic). Further more it is a strict teaching of toleration that no other religion comes as the scape goat, heated criticism, or even under prejudiced persecution. The Catholic Church rather supports other religions be them moral, just, and founded on love, but reserves to hold of the opinion that it is the one true church.

Also, we were stated as a group that attacked Christian marriage in the following:

ARCANUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

...Again, in the very beginning of the Christian Church were repulsed and defeated, with the like unremitting determination, the efforts of many who aimed at the destruction of Christian marriage, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Montanists; and in our own time Mormons, St. Simonians, phalansterians, and communists.

Also, I am currently living in Utah and a few other locales dependent on where I am needed for professional purposes. In Utah, Catholic priests and other clergy have spoken against the LDS faith from their position. I have firsthand experience of this given my relation to various Catholic individuals, and my attending of Catholic mass with them from time to time. The Catholic Church is just as hypocritical and attacking as any mainstream Christian religion I have come into contact with.

I disagree with your stance that the Catholic church cannot be viewed as a part of this thread, although in the creation of, and my participation in, this thread I am referencing mainstream Christianity in main part, of which Catholicism is not considered a part.

Originally posted by Regret
Sorry, even Catholicism has joined in stating that my religion is not Christian, due to our beliefs as to the nature of the Godhead. Baptism is accepted from all Christian denominations by Catholicism, as such re-baptism following conversion to Catholicism is unnecessary. LDS converts are re-baptised currently, due to the Catholic Church's official stance that we are not Christians.

Also, we were stated as a group that attacked Christian marriage in the following:

IMO, this is a blatent attack.

Also, I am currently living in Utah and a few other locales dependent on where I am needed for professional purposes. In Utah, Catholic priests and other clergy have spoken against the LDS faith from their position. I have firsthand experience of this given my relation to various Catholic individuals, and my attending of Catholic mass with them from time to time. The Catholic Church is just as hypocritical and attacking as any mainstream Christian religion I have come into contact with.

I disagree with your stance that the Catholic church cannot be viewed as a part of this thread, although in the creation of, and my participation in, this thread I am referencing mainstream Christianity in main part, of which Catholicism is not considered a part.

I think what you fail to realize is that Catholicism came first. Before any other Christian denomination or association were Catholics. Some separations that followed were justified, but unnecessarily kept. And the many other separations were of mere conveniance. Christian main stream Hypocracy is infact just that "Christian". However you choose to embody in your argument that people who claim themselves catholic who out right (and unchristianly) criticise other peoples and faiths speak for the whole catholic church. If you convert to Catholicism than your adhereing to their teachings and doctrines.

Originally posted by AOR
I think what you fail to realize is that Catholicism came first. Before any other Christian denomination or association were Catholics. Some separations that followed were justified, but unnecessarily kept. And the many other separations were of mere conveniance. Christian main stream Hypocracy is infact just that "Christian". However you choose to embody in your argument that people who claim themselves catholic who out right (and unchristianly) criticise other peoples and faiths speak for the whole catholic church. If you convert to Catholicism than your adhereing to their teachings and doctrines.

I do believe that clergy do speak for the church to their congregations, if they do not then they have no authority to speak to their congregations.

In this thread I have presented two criticisms of Christianity presented by a Jewish Rabbi. The attacks are similar to attacks on my religion. They are what I am addressing. How do you respond to the Jew as to them? If your rationale is similar to mine in rebuttal to the attacks on my faith, how can you state that my rationale is flawed? There is hypocrisy in that much rationale used is the same as rationale that is decried as false.

Originally posted by Regret
Catholicism came before the current Christian movements, it was not the first, it only claims that it was. The Gnostic movement occurred prior to the Catholic movement as did other early Christian movements. Catholicism is only one of the earliest Christian movements, not the first and historically not the original. The Gnostics and the other early sects, as well as Catholicism, all claimed to have originated with the apostles. All the Catholic Church has is the same claim as the rest from the period.

I do believe that clergy do speak for the church to their congregations, if they do not then they have no authority to speak to their congregations.

In this thread I have presented two criticisms of Christianity presented by a Jewish Rabbi. The attacks are similar to attacks on my religion. They are what I am addressing. How do you respond to the Jew as to them? If your rationale is similar to mine in rebuttal to the attacks on my faith, how can you state that my rationale is flawed? There is hypocrisy in that much rationale used is the same as rationale that is decried as false.

Very few Gnostic movements predate the Christian movement, but those that do are questioned for authenticity and are considered “Mystery Religions”. Therefore, for Catholicism to predate all forms of Christianity is not incorrect or wrong so to speak. The Church has long supported her authenticity through logical, verifiable, and approved historical accounts and documents. The Catholic Church didn’t say, “Hey, everyone else is claiming legitimacy, let’s do it to!”

I am inclined to disagree. Where the clergy are trained men in the arts of both catholic teachings and missal practices, they do not always fully know the will of God in what the church claims is his inspired teachings. Yes the clergy knows the general truths and principles that all doctrines hold, but when it comes to the grey areas, he is as dubious as the pope himself. That is why the Catholic Church is so organized (more organized than any other Christian sect, and arguably the world). In ensuring that every clergy man receives updated Catholic Social Teaching whenever necessary, helps to minimize the possibility of false teachings. However, including all said above, a clergy man teaches anything contradictory to the church, he ceases to speak on behalf of the church and for his own agenda. That is why the Catholic Church promotes the education of Catholic members to Church Doctrine and Teachings.

My only argument is the biased position the Rabbi has taken. In the beginning thread he uses Jewish teachings to condemn “Christian” intstruction. In his criticism he fails to measure Christianity with Christianity, making this not a hypocritical argument, but a Jewish criticism argument.