Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.
I remind myself of this constantly ...
2 Timothy 4:1-5 - I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
You see, this is where I run into moral conundrums. I am not the best Christian out there. I tend to question too much. Like the parable of the talents that PMP and I have debated. I am starting to feel that Roman politics worked it's way into the bible. In describing our Lord and savior....I would never use an analogy of a tyrannical slave owner who freely admits to stealing other people's hard work(I reap where I have not sown, I gather where I have not spread seed). To me...this SEEMS like a line to keep the slaves of the empire submissive.
Then you think of the Gnostics, who were branded as heretics...which included the Gospel of Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene...which gives a very different portrayal of the "betrayal of Jesus".
Truthfully? I wonder if we rely too much on ritual and doctrine and fail to use our incredible ability to love one another.
Atheism is no less a religion than Catholicism. It is fundamentally predicated on faith
There is a huge difference between the two. One is not believing in any "higher power", and the other is believing in a higher power. If you want to call not believing in something "faith", you are welcome to do so.
I look at it like this. Stamp collecting is a hobby. I don't collect stamps. Is my not collecting stamps a hobby too?
There is a huge difference between the two. One is not believing in any "higher power", and the other is believing in a higher power. If you want to call not believing in something "faith", you are welcome to do so.
I look at it like this. Stamp collecting is a hobby. I don't collect stamps. Is my not collecting stamps a hobby too?
False analogy. There are basic tenets of Athiesm. None of which can be proven anymore than God can be disproven. Therefore it relies on faith.
I know atheists think they are too cool for school but they have faith just like Christians. I don't expect them to admit it and I expect you like always to play semantics. You can't help being an ass.
Have a blessed day
Are you claiming that collecting stamps doesn't exist or isn't a hobby?
No?
Bullshit analogy. Try again
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suite, is it??
No, I did not say that stamp collecting doesn't exist or that it isn't a hobby. I simply made the analogy that claiming atheism requires faith is like claiming not collecting stamps is a hobby.
An atheist does not have faith. An atheist does not believe in things that have no evidence for their existence.
Just because you made the analogy doesn't make it a good one. I understood what you wrote. It was just stupid.
Question. Can Athiests prove there is no God? If they can't then they are operating on faith.
I can't prove there is a God, therefore I have faith.
There is no difference between atheists and theists in that respect. Unless you can prove scientifically there is no God?
Atheists do not believe. There is no faith involved in not believing.
Yes there is. They do not believe. That requires faith that it is true. You just want to be argumentative. That is OK. Doesn't make you right. But that is OK