Evidence for God from Science

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:The Roman Catholic Church will de-baptize people here in this jurisdiction but it is a complicated procedure. The man who discipled me actually went through it, and it cost him a lot of time and money.

Seriously FL? A Catholic Church actually pretends they can do that? I shudder to think of what the Vatican would say of such a practice. Of course I could be wrong but that seems like an extremely heretical thing to do and absolutely against everything I know the Church teaches, i.e. one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. De-baptizing someone implies they can get baptized all over again, totally anti-Catholic.

Byblos wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:The Roman Catholic Church will de-baptize people here in this jurisdiction but it is a complicated procedure. The man who discipled me actually went through it, and it cost him a lot of time and money.

Seriously FL? A Catholic Church actually pretends they can do that? I shudder to think of what the Vatican would say of such a practice. Of course I could be wrong but that seems like an extremely heretical thing to do and absolutely against everything I know the Church teaches, i.e. one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. De-baptizing someone implies they can get baptized all over again, totally anti-Catholic.

Byblos, remember, FL is Canadian. They'll do anything, as long as there's bacon involved.

RickD wrote:Byblos, remember, FL is Canadian. They'll do anything, as long as there's bacon involved.

But is it Canadian bacon?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos, remember, FL is Canadian. They'll do anything, as long as there's bacon involved.

But is it Canadian bacon?

No, it's back bacon, you hoser.

Byblos wrote:Seriously FL? A Catholic Church actually pretends they can do that?

Seriously, the guy who discipled me went through the process. It doesn't make sense and seems impossible, and it must be. My guess is that he interpreted the process as de-baptizing. In any event, why would someone de-baptize only to get re-baptized in some other church???

RickD wrote:Byblos, remember, FL is Canadian.

Canadian on my passport, Swiss in spirit. I prefer cheese to bacon.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Byblos wrote:Seriously FL? A Catholic Church actually pretends they can do that?

Seriously, the guy who discipled me went through the process. It doesn't make sense and seems impossible, and it must be. My guess is that he interpreted the process as de-baptizing. In any event, why would someone de-baptize only to get re-baptized in some other church???

I don't know if they would or wouldn't, but de-baptizing certainly leaves the possibility open for re-baptizing, which is a foreign idea to Catholicism.

Byblos wrote:de-baptizing certainly leaves the possibility open for re-baptizing, which is a foreign idea to Catholicism.

Here in Quebec, the RCC had special status so that when a baby was baptized, he was then put on the civil register. Since nearly everyone was Catholic, baptism = birth certificate. Things have changed now and a baptism is just a religious sacrament with the state having nothing to do with it.

I assume that the man who discipled me (a godfather for Catholics) simply ''divorced'' his birth certificate from his baptism (the two are one and the same here for older people) and then went about getting a retroactive birth certificate. The more I think about this whole story, the more it sounds looney.

I'll be visiting a lawyer friend on the weekend and I'll ask her about all this. Stay tuned.

FL

narnia4 wrote:On a more serious note, I'm so tired of this "New Atheist" movement. As Ravi Zacharias has often said, "What are you denying?" They spend so much time shaking their fists and hating (and it obviously is hate) this "imaginary" being. If He is on the same level as Santa Claus then that says a great deal about these atheists. I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't waste my time holding anti-Santa rallies or putting a fire under my chimney so that he gets burned when he comes down it.

The point is that there is no organization(s) sending people out to prosthelytize on behalf of "God". They protest the use of "God" in our founding documents, in our currency, in our government, ... churches on corners with bells ringing ( seriously...I've had that mentioned to me ) and all that is Christianity, Muslim, Catholic...whatever has to do with the ONE God.

They don't protest Santa, Zeus, Neptune...or any other gods because frankly no one takes these serious enough to push them on society as actually existing other than in myth.

I think it is quite easy to see why they shake their fists and hate. They are surrounded by "God" and cannot seem to exist without this "God" being shoved in their faces or laws made according to this non-existent ( or so they believe ) "God's" moral code(s).

What's not to understand? There is no legitimate reason to protest <insert god here> as no one really believes <insert god here> really exists.
.
.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:l be visiting a lawyer friend on the weekend and I'll ask her about all this. Stay tuned.

Byblos,

in 1986, the legislators here decided that a baptismal certificate issued by the RCC was no longer also birth certificate, and so all new babies from then on had to have a birth certificate. Older citizens could apply for a birth certificate on presentation of a baptismal certificate and a small fee of about $15. To this day, those born before 1986 and baptized in the RCC and Canadian citizens may only have a baptismal certificate and it will be considered a valid birth certificate. The present price for a new birth certificate issued on presentation of a baptismal certificate for older citizens is $25.

Previous to 1986, anyone wanting to have a new birth certificate would have had to go through the same procedure as for a name change. This would have been quite costly and would not nullify the baptismal certificate, which was the domain of the RCC anyway. So...the guy who discipled me is still baptized by the RCC!

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:l be visiting a lawyer friend on the weekend and I'll ask her about all this. Stay tuned.

Byblos,

in 1986, the legislators here decided that a baptismal certificate issued by the RCC was no longer also birth certificate, and so all new babies from then on had to have a birth certificate. Older citizens could apply for a birth certificate on presentation of a baptismal certificate and a small fee of about $15. To this day, those born before 1986 and baptized in the RCC and Canadian citizens may only have a baptismal certificate and it will be considered a valid birth certificate. The present price for a new birth certificate issued on presentation of a baptismal certificate for older citizens is $25.

Previous to 1986, anyone wanting to have a new birth certificate would have had to go through the same procedure as for a name change. This would have been quite costly and would not nullify the baptismal certificate, which was the domain of the RCC anyway. So...the guy who discipled me is still baptized by the RCC!

FL

That's what I thought, there ain't no escaping it .

BavarianWheels wrote:

narnia4 wrote:On a more serious note, I'm so tired of this "New Atheist" movement. As Ravi Zacharias has often said, "What are you denying?" They spend so much time shaking their fists and hating (and it obviously is hate) this "imaginary" being. If He is on the same level as Santa Claus then that says a great deal about these atheists. I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't waste my time holding anti-Santa rallies or putting a fire under my chimney so that he gets burned when he comes down it.

The point is that there is no organization(s) sending people out to prosthelytize on behalf of "God". They protest the use of "God" in our founding documents, in our currency, in our government, ... churches on corners with bells ringing ( seriously...I've had that mentioned to me ) and all that is Christianity, Muslim, Catholic...whatever has to do with the ONE God.

They don't protest Santa, Zeus, Neptune...or any other gods because frankly no one takes these serious enough to push them on society as actually existing other than in myth.

I think it is quite easy to see why they shake their fists and hate. They are surrounded by "God" and cannot seem to exist without this "God" being shoved in their faces or laws made according to this non-existent ( or so they believe ) "God's" moral code(s).

What's not to understand? There is no legitimate reason to protest <insert god here> as no one really believes <insert god here> really exists.
.
.

You're not addressing what I actually said, which is why do they hate God? Let's say there were believers in Zeus who went around passing pro-Zeus legislation... is Zeus the guy you'd get mad at?

Also, given naturalism and reductionism and quite possibly a complete lack of consciousness and free will, its not as if Christians could help it either. If you're being consistent in your ideology you might as well relax instead of getting angry about something that doesn't matter at all.

narnia4 wrote:You're not addressing what I actually said, which is why do they hate God? Let's say there were believers in Zeus who went around passing pro-Zeus legislation... is Zeus the guy you'd get mad at?

I'm not sure you'll get many atheists to claim to hate "God", but rather what Christians shove down their throats about God. If they say they hate God, it's just to ruffle a Christian's feathers.
.
.

narnia4 wrote:You're not addressing what I actually said, which is why do they hate God? Let's say there were believers in Zeus who went around passing pro-Zeus legislation... is Zeus the guy you'd get mad at?

You made me laugh with "pro-Zeus legislation"... What would that include?

BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not sure you'll get many atheists to claim to hate "God", but rather what Christians shove down their throats about God. If they say they hate God, it's just to ruffle a Christian's feathers.

Why do you defend them?

Reactionary wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I'm not sure you'll get many atheists to claim to hate "God", but rather what Christians shove down their throats about God. If they say they hate God, it's just to ruffle a Christian's feathers.

Why do you defend them?

I'm pointing out that what Narnia4 said a few posts back is wrong.

narnia4 wrote:On a more serious note, I'm so tired of this "New Atheist" movement. As Ravi Zacharias has often said, "What are you denying?" They spend so much time shaking their fists and hating (and it obviously is hate) this "imaginary" being. If He is on the same level as Santa Claus then that says a great deal about these atheists. I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't waste my time holding anti-Santa rallies or putting a fire under my chimney so that he gets burned when he comes down it.

One would be hard-pressed to find an atheist that hates the Christian God. I have spoken to many atheists. On forums and a few in person. None hate God specifically. To hate God would be nonsense. Rather they "hate" hypocrit Christians...and I can't help but agree to some degrees.

So I'm not defending their disbelief, but defending WHAT they actually have issue with...and it's not with "God", but the people of this imaginary God and the rules/morals they try/force onto and legislate on society. THAT part I agree with. God's morals should not be legislated onto secular society.
.
.

Reactionary wrote:

narnia4 wrote:You're not addressing what I actually said, which is why do they hate God? Let's say there were believers in Zeus who went around passing pro-Zeus legislation... is Zeus the guy you'd get mad at?

You made me laugh with "pro-Zeus legislation"... What would that include?

"pro-Zeus legislation"... err would be one Abortion on demand
-
-
-