Catholics and Liberals and Ghosts

[Hit The North]

I'm just saying if he did admit to something such as being a Marxist it would at most be a Socialist. Everyone knows he is a liberal.

So what? Everyone knows you're a catholic. At least liberals don't believe in ghosts.

[Manifesto]

So what? Everyone knows you're a catholic. At least liberals don't believe in ghosts.
I'm sure there are plenty of liberals that believe in ghosts.

[Hit The North]

I'm sure there are plenty of liberals that believe in ghosts.

Perhaps, but the point is that believing in ghosts is not a constitutive element of being a liberal. But if you don't believe in ghosts, you can't properly call yourself a catholic.

[Manifesto]

Perhaps, but the point is that believing in ghosts is not a constitutive element of being a liberal. But if you don't believe in ghosts, you can't properly call yourself a catholic.
Ok I see what you are getting at but as for Catholics there are many that think that there are only angels and demons.

[Hit The North]

Ok I see what you are getting at but as for Catholics there are many that think that there are only angels and demons.

Maybe, but that's hardly an advance in scientific understanding of the world. Anyway, surely all Catholics have to believe in the Holy Ghost?

But, back to Mr Moore...

[Yazman]

lol, its usually referred to as the Holy Spirit nowadays and whether you say "spirit" or "ghost" it has never meant 'ghosts' in the supernatural sense (spirits of dead people/beings floating around that didn't go to the afterlife for some reason) as you seem to be portraying it to be. It just refers to the omnipresent aspect of god.

I am a committed atheist but your misrepresentation of christian theology is astounding.

[Manifesto]

And seriously whats with the scientific advancement stuff all about? Its not as if people still think that all bad things happen because the devil did it or anything.

[ComradeOm]

lol, its usually referred to as the Holy Spirit nowadays...A change in terminology prompted by the realisation that 'Holy Ghost' sounds absolutely ridiculous to modern ears


...and whether you say "spirit" or "ghost" it has never meant 'ghosts' in the supernatural sense (spirits of dead people/beings floating around that didn't go to the afterlife for some reason) as you seem to be portraying it to be. It just refers to the omnipresent aspect of godThe Holy Spirit is, as part of God himself, by definition supernatural

[Decolonize The Left]

The Holy Spirit is, as part of God himself, by definition supernatural

Well technically god can't be separated into 'parts' as god is omnipresent...

-August

[Yazman]

A change in terminology prompted by the realisation that 'Holy Ghost' sounds absolutely ridiculous to modern ears

The Holy Spirit is, as part of God himself, by definition supernatural

You're really going to be this pedantic about the wording of a sentence? Stop being a grammar nazi and making useless posts like this, it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I said "ghosts in the supernatural sense. Here's some dictionary definitions:

"Holy spirit" or "Holy ghost" does not refer to the following, as Bob the Builder seems to think it does:


3: the visible (http://www.revleft.com/vb/visible) disembodied (http://www.revleft.com/vb/disembodied) soul (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soul) of a dead (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dead) person (http://www.revleft.com/vb/person)



2 : a disembodied soul; especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness

"Holy spirit" or "Holy ghost" DOES refer to the following:


"Holy spirit" or "Holy ghost" refers to a christian (it isn't just catholic) theological concept. It refers to god, but the omnipresent aspect of god - the all-seeing, all-knowing, always-present part that affects people in their daily lives.

You shouldn't talk shit about religion without knowing basic shit like this. If you don't know it, then do the research before talking crap about it, otherwise you just come off as ignorant.

[Hit The North]

You shouldn't talk shit about religion without knowing basic shit like this. If you don't know it, then do the research before talking crap about it, otherwise you just come off as ignorant.

And you just come off as an abusive mystic, desperately clinging to semantics in order to justify your otherwise irrational and medieval belief system.

Besides:


3: the visible (http://www.revleft.com/vb/visible) disembodied (http://www.revleft.com/vb/disembodied) soul (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soul) of a dead (http://www.revleft.com/vb/dead) person (http://www.revleft.com/vb/person)
&

2 : a disembodied soul; especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness

Both sound like good descriptions of Jesus Christ after his resurrection. He died and was resurrected; supposedly now exists in a disembodied form; inhabits the unseen world of Heaven; and appeared to the apostles soon after his resurrection in bodily likeness.


I am a committed atheist

I don't believe you.


Originally posted by Manifesto
And seriously whats with the scientific advancement stuff all about? Its not as if people still think that all bad things happen because the devil did it or anything.


Sure about that? See the results of a Gallup poll below:


Devil Inside Religion and Politics
Naturally, people who tend toward religiosity are more likely to believe in the devil. Eighty-three percent of Americans who said religion is "very" important in their lives believe in the devil, but the number drops to 62% among those for whom religion is "fairly" important. Only 22% of those who said religion is "not very" important said they believe in the devil. In fact, this is the only subgroup in which those who believe in the devil are in the minority.
Eighty-three percent of self-described members of the religious right believe in the devil, as do 64% who don't consider themselves members of the religious right. Seventy-nine percent of Protestants and 70% of Catholics believe in the devil.

You can look at the full report here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/7858/Devil-Demographic-Details.aspx

Now, many of these believers in Satan may not see his intervention in the world, but many will.

If you think that many Christians don't believe that Satan is responsible for all the evil in the world, you need to watch more TV evangelists who regularly name Satan as the culprit.

[ComradeOm]

Well technically god can't be separated into 'parts' as god is omnipresent...You're right. It'd be more accurate to say 'an aspect of God' as opposed to a discrete part


HOLY SHIT you're really going to be this pedantic about the wording of a sentence?I'm curious, how exactly was I being pedantic? I've hardly regaled you with a host of unnecessary facts, unless you consider the observation that the 'Holy Spirit' was once referred to as the 'Holy Ghost' to be a somewhat obscure observation?

I do particularly like how you accuse be of both being pedantic and ignorant in the same post though :lol:


"Holy spirit" or "Holy ghost" does not refer to the following, as Bob the Builder seems to think it doesNo, the definition of ghost has changed somewhat in the past two thousand years but it still remains fundamentally the same at the core. Ghost has always meant spirit/soul... some supernatural animating force. The definition that you refer to, with its specific connection with death, is an alternative one that has grown in popularity in the past centuries. This is one in which the animating spectral force is directly related to a dead soul. Frankly the only difference here is that, unless you believe Nietzsche, God is not dead


"Holy spirit" or "Holy ghost" refers to a christian (it isn't just catholic) theological concept. It refers to god, but the omnipresent aspect of god - the all-seeing, all-knowing, always-present part that affects people in their daily lives.And God, ie the divine, is by definition supernatural. Angels are supernatural. Demons are supernatural. Heaven is supernatural. Any divine agency is supernatural; that is, they exist outside the realm of natural laws

For that matter, banshees are supernatural. Vampires are supernatural. Trolls (of the non-internet variety) are supernatural. Fairies are supernatural. Poltergeists are supernatural. And so on and so on

[Yazman]

And God, ie the divine, is by definition supernatural. Angels are supernatural. Demons are supernatural. Heaven is supernatural. Any divine agency is supernatural; that is, they exist outside the realm of natural laws

For that matter, banshees are supernatural. Vampires are supernatural. Trolls (of the non-internet variety) are supernatural. Fairies are supernatural. Poltergeists are supernatural. And so on and so on

Irrelevant. I was referring to a specific thing and it was quite obvious what I was referring to. I never said [insert fairy tale here] wasn't supernatural (god/demons/whatever).


And you just come off as an abusive mystic, desperately clinging to semantics in order to justify your otherwise irrational and medieval belief system.

LOL. I don't support christianity and it isn't my "belief system." I'm not "defending it." It surprises me that you would be at Revleft of all places and hold such a "with us or against us" mentality. Two people being atheists doesn't mean one is required to automatically support everything the other says when one attacks religion. I'm criticising your misunderstanding of a pretty fundamental concept in christianity. How do you expect to be able to challenge christian beliefs - to THEM - when you don't even seem willing to learn about said beliefs? How the hell can you expect to gain any credibility in this? I called you on your bullshit, thats all.


I don't believe you.

LOL. I don't give a shit if you believe it or not. Religion and associated "belief" should be abolished but its ridiculously stupid to mouth off about it when you clearly don't know much about it. Being an atheist doesn't mean knee-jerk defense of idiotic claims made by other atheists just because they're "against religion." (this means that I am not on "your side of the argument" when you say something I disagree with just because we are both atheists). It means the denial of god(s)!


You're right. It'd be more accurate to say 'an aspect of God' as opposed to a discrete part

Thats right. The christian concept of "holy spirit" refers, as I said, to "the omnipresent aspect of god - the all-seeing, all-knowing, always-present part that affects people in their daily lives." It does not refer to "ghosts" as we commonly picture them today. To compare the two demonstrates, imo, a pretty poor understanding of the concept, and if we are to demonstrate to them why its wrong simply saying "LOL! You believe in GHOSTS!" isn't going to cut it, because you just come off as ignorant.

[danyboy27]

ghost might exist, but there is nothing magical about it, we just cant explain it with our current science, that all.

see, even atheist can believe in ghost :D

[Hit The North]

LOL. I don't support christianity and it isn't my "belief system.Then why are you leaping to the defence of this doctrine by hair-splitting over definitions? If you were really an atheist you would understand than none of the 'referents' in religious discourse are real; they are symbolic representations. So whether the ghost in 'holy ghost' is meant to be the same as the 'ghost' in Hamlet, the 'ghost' in Dickens' A Christmas Carol, or the 'ghost' in Descartes' 'ghost in the machine', is irrelevant. None of them exist in the real world.

You seem incapable of understanding ComradeOrm's argument that whether you call it 'ghost', 'spirit' or whatever, it is still an entity which exists in the supernatural realm, alongside a variety of other fabulous and ridiculous 'species'.


I'm not "defending it."Then why do you give a fuck whether this non-existent deity is called a 'ghost'; or a 'spirit'?


I'm criticising your misunderstanding of a pretty fundamental concept in Christianity. On the contrary, it is you who is labouring under a misunderstanding: that whether you call it 'ghost' or 'spirit' actually matters. We could call it 'the Holy Sid' and it would still be nonsense! Even if we accept your definition that the concept of the 'holy spirit' merely refers to "the omnipresent aspect of god - the all-seeing, all-knowing, always-present part that affects people in their daily lives", this does not make it fundamentally more rational than believing in ghosts - it still depends on the same belief in a supernatural realm. In fact, all your definition comes down to is the idea that the holy ghost is more powerful, more omnipresent and more omniscient than regular ghosts. All you've defined is a 'super ghost'.


How do you expect to be able to challenge Christian beliefs - to THEM - when you don't even seem willing to learn about said beliefs?
You cannot challenge Christian beliefs with rational argument because of this little thing called 'faith'. So if this is how you spend your time, you should get another, more productive, hobby.

[anti-N.I.C.E.]

I'm sure there are plenty of liberals that believe in ghosts.
You're a Catholic Communist?

I'm not even a Catholic and probably follow the teachings of the Catholic Church better than you do.

You must be a pretty poor Catholic.

[Yazman]

Then why are you leaping to the defence of this doctrine by hair-splitting over definitions? If you were really an atheist you would understand than none of the 'referents' in religious discourse are real; they are symbolic representations. So whether the ghost in 'holy ghost' is meant to be the same as the 'ghost' in Hamlet, the 'ghost' in Dickens' A Christmas Carol, or the 'ghost' in Descartes' 'ghost in the machine', is irrelevant. None of them exist in the real world.

Its not irrelevant when you're misrepresenting them, which you shouldn't be doing if you're trying to advance rational thought and critical thinking. You can't really do this without looking ignorant when you're just painting their beliefs as something they're not - they won't even consider your argument if you don't even bother to try to come to a rudimentary understanding of what it is they actually believe, which you're not doing.


You seem incapable of understanding ComradeOrm's argument that whether you call it 'ghost', 'spirit' or whatever, it is still an entity which exists in the supernatural realm, alongside a variety of other fabulous and ridiculous 'species'.

I never disputed that it was in the supernatural realm, wtf. I always agreed with that from the very start. What I said is that the commonly known idea of a "ghost" is one of apparitions, and that "holy ghost/spirit" doesn't refer to an apparition. This is an important distinction to them - don't bother challenging them if you don't even understand what you're challenging.


Then why do you give a fuck whether this non-existent deity is called a 'ghost'; or a 'spirit'?

I don't give a fuck whether you say "holy ghost" or "holy spirit" - I take issue with the fact that you're claiming that "holy ghost/spirit" means apparitions when it obviously doesn't mean that. You shouldn't misrepresent people, even if they're the enemy. Being an atheist is not an excuse to be ignorant.


On the contrary, it is you who is labouring under a misunderstanding: that whether you call it 'ghost' or 'spirit' actually matters. We could call it 'the Holy Sid' and it would still be nonsense!

Thats true, but the problem is that you're claiming that "holy ghost/spirit" means apparitions when it doesn't. Its nonsense either way but its an important distinction for them and its something that you should know. If you tell a catholic that "apparitions don't exist and thats why the concept of the holy spirit is bullshit" you will get laughed at for being incredibly ignorant. You will only get them to question their own ideas if you can put forward a well informed argument, and painting them as idiots and misrepresenting what they believe will only insult them.


Even if we accept your definition that the concept of the 'holy spirit' merely refers to "the omnipresent aspect of god - the all-seeing, all-knowing, always-present part that affects people in their daily lives", this does not make it fundamentally more rational than believing in ghosts - it still depends on the same belief in a supernatural realm.

Of course it does, but its a very important distinction to them.


In fact, all your definition comes down to is the idea that the holy ghost is more powerful, more omnipresent and more omniscient than regular ghosts. All you've defined is a 'super ghost'.

What it comes down to is that it doesn't refer to "regular ghosts" at all and that they aren't really an important part, if a part at all, of their canon.


You cannot challenge Christian beliefs with rational argument because of this little thing called 'faith'.

Of course you can. A lot of the atheists I know IRL used to be very religious people (the city I'm staying in atm is a very religious one) who were led to question their beliefs by other atheists. You can't "disprove" their but you can show them a different way of thinking and lead them to question their own beliefs.


So if this is how you spend your time, you should get another, more productive, hobby.

This is a pretty pointless thing to include, and only serves to inject venom into the thread. There's no need to be spiteful dude, take it easy.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Have you ever considered as an atheist that obviously by definition has no stake in theistic faith that actively setting out on the endevour of developing a precise and detailed working knowledge of that precise thing is a rather fruitless use of time?

I don't promote ignorance in any form but there are priests who don't know the entire labyrinth of christian doctrine and they've wasted their lives on purpetuating it, surely it's better to forget some of this idiotic drivel and let it fade from the consciousness of society than to teach ourselves it's every facet and ensure it's survival and resurgance in the emotionally and mentally infirm people who feel the only thng that will get them through tomorrow is the unprovable molestation of random chance by an invisible magic sky father (or miracles as they call them).

You don't stamp out idiocy by reading widely on the subject, simply not being an idiot is much more effective.

[Hit The North]

What I said is that the commonly known idea of a "ghost" is one of apparitions, and that "holy ghost/spirit" doesn't refer to an apparition...

I don't give a fuck whether you say "holy ghost" or "holy spirit" - I take issue with the fact that you're claiming that "holy ghost/spirit" means apparitions when it obviously doesn't mean that...

Thats true, but the problem is that you're claiming that "holy ghost/spirit" means apparitions when it doesn't. If you tell a catholic that "apparitions don't exist and thats why the concept of the holy spirit is bullshit" you will get laughed at for being incredibly ignorant.


So far, "dude", you're the only one talking about apparitions - in your attempt to claim I said what I didn't say.

Nevertheless, while you mention it; how do you explain stories such as these which have great currency in the Catholic church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/3562128/150th-anniversary-of-Virgin-Marys-appearance-takes-Pope-Benedict-XVI-to-Lourdes.html

and this:

Church recognizes Virgin Mary appearances in France

A Roman Catholic bishop said Sunday that the church has officially recognized that the Virgin Mary appeared to a 17th-century shepherd girl in the French Alps.
Speaking at Mass in remarks broadcast nationally on France-2 television, Monsignor Jean-Michel di Falco Leandri said he recognized the "supernatural origin" of the apparitions to 17-year-old Benoite Rencurel from 1664 to 1718.
The bishop, in an interview on France-Info radio, said the decision meant the church "has committed itself in an official way to say to pilgrims 'you can come here in total ... http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D90F2RL00.html

So, taking this evidence into account, I'll restate the argument that many Catholics believe in ghosts. Although to satisfy your love of evasive language, I'll modify my claim and say that Catholics, including the Pope, believe in apparitions.

Read the above links and refute my claim.

[Manifesto]

You're a Catholic Communist?

I'm not even a Catholic and probably follow the teachings of the Catholic Church better than you do.

You must be a pretty poor Catholic.
What?! All I said was Liberals also believe in ghosts which is true and you make an accusation like that?

[Manifesto]

Now, many of these believers in Satan may not see his intervention in the world, but many will.

If you think that many Christians don't believe that Satan is responsible for all the evil in the world, you need to watch more TV evangelists who regularly name Satan as the culprit.
That article more focuses on just belief in the Devil. And to those that do think the Devil is responsible for all bad things in the world I do not see those people any more different than ones that worshiped Greek gods/goddesses in order to explain natural events.

[spiltteeth]

Satan is real y'all....but for $9.99 I can exorcise the evil one from yr life!
Just pm me.

Also, all those bizarre preachers on that religious channel owe their private jets to satan, if they couldn't manipulate peoples fears referring to the devil they'd end up working...well, working where I work I guess.
Wow. All my righteousness turned sour in this post. Ouch.

[9]

Could someone please change the name of this thread to, "Catholics and Liberals and Ghosts, Oh My!" ?

[Hit The North]

That article more focuses on just belief in the Devil. And to those that do think the Devil is responsible for all bad things in the world I do not see those people any more different than ones that worshiped Greek gods/goddesses in order to explain natural events.
Neither do I - except there's a particularly malicious and sadistic turn to the belief in Satan - condemning those who 'sin' to an eternity of torture and misery.

Manifesto, as a Catholic, do you believe in Satan?

As a Catholic do you believe in the miraculous appearances of the Virgin Mary? Do you believe in the virgin birth?

As a communist do you believe that the Pope is appointed by God?

[Manifesto]

Manifesto, as a Catholic, do you believe in Satan?
For this I do not know, I have been thinking about my religious opinion recently and how I do not get why a loving God would send people to Earth just to go to Hell and that the Catholic Church most likely used that as a scare tactic.

As a Catholic do you believe in the miraculous appearances of the Virgin Mary? Do you believe in the virgin birth?By miraculous appearances do you mean those wackos that think she appears in their food? Then no. Do I think she was a virgin? Hard to say up to Jesus's birth considering God can do almost anything and this is tough to say like what Dust Bunnies told me (when he asked me this one question) that God still has to abide to laws of physics but after his birth then of course not.

As a communist do you believe that the Pope is appointed by God?I never really got how the Pope is appointed by God when it seems bureaucratic.

[JohnnyC]

For this I do not know, I have been thinking about my religious opinion recently and how I do not get why a loving God would send people to Earth just to go to Hell and that the Catholic Church most likely used that as a scare tactic.
By miraculous appearances do you mean those wackos that think she appears in their food? Then no. Do I think she was a virgin? Hard to say up to Jesus's birth considering God can do almost anything and this is tough to say like what Dust Bunnies told me (when he asked me this one question) that God still has to abide to laws of physics but after his birth then of course not.
I never really got how the Pope is appointed by God when it seems bureaucratic.
Why do you call yourself catholic then?

[ComradeOm]

Do I think she was a virgin? Hard to say up to Jesus's birth considering God can do almost anything and this is tough to say like what Dust Bunnies told me (when he asked me this one question) that God still has to abide to laws of physics but after his birth then of course notSo you insist that you are a Catholic yet you question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?


I never really got how the Pope is appointed by God when it seems bureaucratic.It never struck you that the Church itself is bureaucratic? :confused:

[Manifesto]

Why do you call yourself catholic then?
1. It fits (this is a big part of it)
2. I have had my First Communion so technically I am Catholic (I know that does not mean I have to be but like I said it fits).

[Manifesto]

So you insist that you are a Catholic yet you question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
Logically yes. When Dust Bunnies asked me "If God can do anything could he make a rock so heavy that not even he could lift it?" (yes I know he is atheist) he told me that God still has to abide to the laws of physics (as previously stated) so he would not be able to fit a square into a circle for example. So an egg has to be fertilized in order for a baby to be born.

It never struck you that the Church itself is bureaucratic? :confused:
Of course I have it, has been for many centuries.

[ComradeOm]

Logically yes. When Dust Bunnies asked me "If God can do anything could he make a rock so heavy that not even he could lift it?" (yes I know he is atheist) he told me that God still has to abide to the laws of physics (as previously stated) so he would not be able to fit a square into a circle for example. So an egg has to be fertilized in order for a baby to be bornAll very interesting (I lie) but completely beside the point. This is that fact that Immaculate Conception is official Church doctrine. It doesn't matter a damn what Dust Bunnies (whoever they are) says but what the Pope's position is. And on this point you are explicitly disagreeing with a rather major aspect of Catholic dogma

Yet you insist in parading yourself as a Catholic


Of course I have it, has been for many centuries.Yet you believe that this bureaucratic body is compatible with an anarchist stateless society? The Catholic Church is a fairly integral part of Catholicism :glare:


I have had my First Communion so technically I am CatholicTechnicalities have nothing to do with this. I've technically been a Catholic since I was a month or two old yet I don't feel the need to abide by that superstition today (now that I can actually think for myself) and I definitely don't consider Catholicism to be part of my political makeup

[Manifesto]

All very interesting (I lie) but completely beside the point. This is that fact that Immaculate Conception is official Church doctrine. It doesn't matter a damn what Dust Bunnies (whoever they are) says but what the Pope's position is. And on this point you are explicitly disagreeing with a rather major aspect of Catholic dogma

Yet you insist in parading yourself as a Catholic

Yet you believe that this bureaucratic body is compatible with an anarchist stateless society? The Catholic Church is a fairly integral part of Catholicism :glare:
Really parading? Like I said it FITS, I am actually anti-clerical so Christian would be better suited but it WON'T FIT and Dust Bunnies (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16356) is a member on Revleft.


Technicalities have nothing to do with this. I've technically been a Catholic since I was a month or two old yet I don't feel the need to abide by that superstition today (now that I can actually think for myself) and I definitely don't consider Catholicism to be part of my political makeup
If I didn't think for myself I would be a Republican right now and in case I have not yet mentioned it enough yet I am not really Catholic and it fits.

[spiltteeth]

Jesus radicals is a pretty large anarchist Christian group, they have a website where you can ask questions.

For specific Catholic anarchists there is
http://catholicanarchy.org/

Also, I recommend Anarchy and Christianity by Mr. Jacques Ellul

As for hell, for what it's worth, I'm an orthodox Christian, and the idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places. This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible.
While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the God. If one examines what the early Church Fathers wrote about "hell" and the afterlife, it will be seen that they too understood that there is no place called hell, and that both paradise and torment came from being in God's presence in the afterlife.
When you examine what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and what most Protestants believe about the afterlife, and compare that with the scriptures and early Church beliefs, you find large disparities. You will also find their innovative doctrines were not drawn from the Bible or historic Church doctrine, but rather from the mythology of the Middle Ages, juridical concepts, and enlightenment rationalizations, all alien to early Christian thought.
There is no "place" of torment, The "place" is actually a condition of either punishment ("hell") or paradise ("heaven") depending on how you experience the presence of God.
Experiencing God's presence in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible.

[Yazman]

So far, "dude", you're the only one talking about apparitions - in your attempt to claim I said what I didn't say.

Nevertheless, while you mention it; how do you explain stories such as these which have great currency in the Catholic church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/3562128/150th-anniversary-of-Virgin-Marys-appearance-takes-Pope-Benedict-XVI-to-Lourdes.html

and this:

So, taking this evidence into account, I'll restate the argument that many Catholics believe in ghosts. Although to satisfy your love of evasive language, I'll modify my claim and say that Catholics, including the Pope, believe in apparitions.

Read the above links and refute my claim.

Marian apparitions are an entirely different subject and I do not object to your pointing them out.

What I was taking issue with, was your portrayal of the holy spirit/ghost as an apparition when clearly it isn't. Also lol @ your putting dude in quote marks - you got some sort of issue with my language? No need to be so highly strung.


Have you ever considered as an atheist that obviously by definition has no stake in theistic faith that actively setting out on the endevour of developing a precise and detailed working knowledge of that precise thing is a rather fruitless use of time?

Understanding the basics of something you seek to criticise is hardly an "endeavour of developing a precise and detailed working knowledge of that precise thing." This is something that applies to everything, it isn't even specific to our criticism of religion. When somebody doesn't understand the basics about something, they need to learn about it or otherwise keep their mouth shut until they do.


I don't promote ignorance in any form but there are priests who don't know the entire labyrinth of christian doctrine and they've wasted their lives on purpetuating it, surely it's better to forget some of this idiotic drivel and let it fade from the consciousness of society than to teach ourselves it's every facet and ensure it's survival and resurgance in the emotionally and mentally infirm people who feel the only thng that will get them through tomorrow is the unprovable molestation of random chance by an invisible magic sky father (or miracles as they call them).

LMAO, nice try. You make it seem as if I advocate such a thing, when really all I said was that its stupid to criticise something without having a real understanding of its basic ideas. You can't get a catholic person thinking about the holy spirit from our perspective by just saying "lol you believe in ghosts", they will just switch off. Its important to know what you're talking about when you criticise something, whatever it is.


You don't stamp out idiocy by reading widely on the subject, simply not being an idiot is much more effective.

Hey, we have a bootstrapper on our hands! Abandon ship!

[Robert]

So you insist that you are a Catholic yet you question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?

10 to 1 you're talking about the Virgin Birth, which has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

[Richard Nixon]

10 to 1 you're talking about the Virgin Birth, which has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Also a lot of Christians think that doctrine is unChristian as it implies that someone other then Jesus can be free from sin. These Christians include me BTW.

[Robert]

Doesn't imply that to me, but ... Whatever.