Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of AnimatedDirt

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - AnimatedDirt

Apologetics and Theology / Pope Francis: "There is no Hell."
« on: March 29, 2018, 11:38:44 am »
Pope Francis: There is no Hell.

Scalfari says to the Pope, "Your Holiness, in our previous meeting you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still out of his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished?"

Pope Francis says,  "They are not punished, those who repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."

That's a pretty amazing statement coming from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

This sheds some new light on the question of a soul, as interpreted by most Catholics to be immortal.  See the long discussion of this in the thread, When Did the Adam Get His Soul most of the RCC's side of things being explained by Bill McEnaney.

If the pope denies Hell exists and that souls disappear, then what happened to the teaching that the soul is immortal??

This brings up all sorts of questions and a huge change in Catholic theology!

Pope Benedict XVI said in a 2007 sermon, “Jesus came to tell us that he wants us all in Heaven and that Hell, of which so little is said in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love.”

As for the human soul, the Catholic Church teaches that it is eternal, immortal in countless places throughout the Catechism.  One instance, "Endowed with 'a spiritual and immortal' soul, the human person is 'the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.' From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude." (1703)

Is pope Francis an Annihilationist?

Of course the Vatican says:

* In a statement released on Mar. 29, after Scalfari's report garnered worldwide attention, the Vatican said:

"The Holy Father Francis recently received the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica in a private meeting on the occasion of Easter, without however giving him any interviews. What is reported by the author in today’s article [in La Repubblica] is the result of his reconstruction, in which the textual words pronounced by the Pope are not quoted. No quotation of the aforementioned article must therefore be considered as a faithful transcription of the words of the Holy Father."


Atheist Richard Dawkins warns against celebrating the alleged demise of Christianity in Europe

Richard Dawkins, prominent atheist author and evolutionary biologist, has warned against celebrating what some call the demise of Christianity in Europe. Dawkins tweeted Wednesday: “Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme: ‘Always keep a-hold of nurse – For fear of finding something worse.’” The outspoken atheist linked to an article by The Guardian titled “’Christianity as default is gone’: the rise of a non-Christian Europe,” which starkly illustrated research showing a majority of young people in a dozen countries do not follow a religion.

"It's tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it's a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they're not," Dawkins said. "If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it's quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”

First of all, is this anti-Islamic and bigotry and if it is, why isn't anyone saying so?  If it isn't, why not?

It's a good topic for discussion..."the relatively benign Christian religion" vs. "the most evil...Islam".

Apologetics and Theology / "Anti-Jewish" threads by Emuse
« on: March 07, 2018, 08:51:21 am »
Quote from: Emuse
Things have become heated following the spate of recent anti-Jewish threads from Trinity and it appears that we are being left to self-moderate the situation.  I'm now firmly convinced that we are being trolled so may I suggest that we stop responding to them?  Constantly responding to the threads keeps them on the front page.  I really don't know what else to suggest.  I know emotions are running high but can we all exercise some self discipline?

Let's be real here.  Because a handful of people here feel these are "anti-Jewish",  Doesn't automatically make it so.  It may be YOU and THEY feel it is, but it really isn't.  These have a Jewish theme and do ask some provocative questions...I don't even necessarily find the topics of interest, but I have seen how anyone that think different ( and not that anti-Semitic thinking is to be accepted ) are bullied and someone posts something like the above just goes to prove this bully tactic.

Obviously the forum moderators do not feel the same up to this point, so it may be that they disagree or even that it's borderline, but that doesn't warrant this bully tactic.

It's always amazing how the bullying is always frowned upon except when it is aimed at something we may not agree with.

Apologetics and Theology / Proving "I Exist" Sans A Logical Argument
« on: March 02, 2018, 11:19:23 am »
We can easily move beyond it [solipsism].  Consider this though (said by lucious) ...

I don't know what evidence could be marshalled to prove external world over solipsism. Both views are equally consistent with observations,

The first part of his statement is de facto false if solipsism is false.  Consider ...

P1. If I can prove to you that I exist sans a logical argument then I can disprove solipsism sans a logical argument.
P2. I can prove to you that I exist sans a logical argument.
C. Therefore, I can disprove solipsism sans a logical argument.

Lucious is just assuming that a disproof of solipsism must come from a logical argument.  But it won't because it can't.  My ability to prove my existence to him is his disproof for solipsism and he would need to deny external reality to avoid that.


This is a genuine question not meant to antagonize ( I can come across as such ), but I'm really intrigued by a claim that "I exist" apart from logic.  Seems to me that if it is void of logic, the proof is just a play on words and doesn't really prove anything.  But as I'm not nearly as learned as you on this "stuff"...I'm hoping you'll explain it to me.  It may be you'll have to dumb it down for me.  I like analogies with doughnuts and toilets if that's any indication.  <smile>


Apologetics and Theology / What's Happening Here?
« on: March 01, 2018, 01:08:01 pm »

So if you or him are offended by my response you can go **** yourself.

Fellow RF'ers, what is going on? Should it be down to one person on this forum to point out publicly that the above is totally unacceptable?

Apologetics and Theology / Merry Christmas RF
« on: December 22, 2017, 04:38:13 pm »
“May the Blessings of Christmas be with you,

May the Christ Child light your way,

May God’s holy angels guide you,

And keep you safe each day.”  ~Irish Christmas Blessing

Quote from: The Lord God - Numbers 6:24-26 NIV
 The Lord bless you and keep you;

the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you;

the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.

Apologetics and Theology / When Did The Adam Get His Soul?
« on: September 26, 2017, 12:57:01 pm »
Catholics believe that a new person begins to live the moment when his father's sperm fertilizes his mother's because that's when God ensouls the new human being.

The above seems to be the agreed upon method by which God supposedly unites a human with a soul.  But the bible doesn't seem to teach this.  Genesis is clear on the what a soul is;

Quote from: Genesis 2:7  NIV
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Other translations read, "...became a living soul."

So the biblical method of God creating man is:

Dirt + Breath of Life = Living Soul

Nowhere does God insert a "soul".

A soul then is the whole man that breathes the life given it by God.

A soul is animated dirt.

But then animals are also souls in that they were also created in the same manner ( not likeness, but ingredients, if you will ) as the Adam.

Quote from: Genesis 1:24  NIV
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:

The difference is only that for the Adam, God did the forming personally and everything else, God said the land would produce.

But the bible translators, having a bias, translated the same word in from Hebrew, ḥay·yāh in Genesis 1:27 as living creatures and living soul in Genesis 2:7

Even the NT gets in on the matter.

Quote from: Revelation 16:3   NIV
3The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

The translators changed the word, ψυχῇ in this verse to "living thing" where it is clearly the same word for the human soul in other verses.  ( Matthew 12:18, Matthew 14:34, Luke 1:46 etc. )

God didn't breathe "Adam" into Adam.  God breathed into the nostrils of the hā·’ā·ḏām, the breath of life and the hā·’ā·ḏām became a living being, a living soul whom we know of as "Adam" in name.

So I'm wondering where this belief comes from that we have a in something that separates from the body at death?  I believe the breath of life departs from our bodies at death, but that breath is simply the animating factor that God breathed into the Adam to live.

Where does the bible teach the soul being a separate entity that exists as the person in some ethereal manner?

Apologetics and Theology / Silly Atheists, feelings are for...
« on: September 08, 2017, 10:12:57 am »
If you spend your life worshipping God, then if he does not exist, you have wasted your life. If he does exist, it might admittedly get you some favors.

If you spend your life being good to people and loving them and God does not exist, then you have led a good life. If he does exist and appreciates your life, even better. If he does exist and holds a grudge against you, because you spent life being good and not worshipping him, he is not worth worshipping in the first place.

So why not just be good?

Isn't it interesting that these atheists live and PLEDGE their lives ( being here on RF daily discussing delusional beliefs with delusional people ) to a mechanism ( atheism, evolution ) that has ZERO feelings, good nor bad, yet insist on living as though feelings matter?  What matter of forked tongue?

Why even bother if there is no higher purpose?  Why is it important to "live good" if all end up dead.  The "good" you do only lasts, but for a whisp of cosmic time.  Does it make you die easier?  If all die, everything is meaningless!

If that isn't the epitome of wishful thinking...

Help me understand this religion of goodness in a universe where good and bad only exists in the minds of sentient beings temporarily.

Apologetics and Theology / Global Warming - Good or Bad?
« on: November 23, 2016, 11:03:50 am »
This stems from a topic of Trump and Racism here on RF where it was brought up that Trump may back out of the Paris Agreement - Wikipedia and that ignoring Global Warming or Climate Change is racist.

Media falsely spins Trump’s NYT climate comments – Trump cited Climategate, restated skepticism of ‘global warming’

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change … [ apparently a subcriber-only article ]

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

But now through the above article, 4 scientists ( among a few other links ) that say Climate Change is being blown out of proportion...

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'

'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.'

'Global warming really has become a new religion.'

"I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November...I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.'

'We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.'

Then there is;

Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion, and more

An Obama supporter who describes himself as "100 per cent Democrat," Dyson says he is disappointed that the President "chose the wrong side." Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn't face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?"

James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’

An incorrigible subversive, Lovelock was warning the world about climate change for decades before it began to pay attention, and just when the scientific consensus began to call for intervention to prevent it, he decided we were already too late. But there is a third explanation for why he has shifted his position again, and nowadays feels “laid back about climate change”. All things being equal – “and it’s only got to take one sizable volcano to erupt and all the models, everything else, is right off the board” – he expects that before the consequences of global warming can impact on us significantly, something else will have made our world unrecognisable, and threaten the human race.

In any case, he says that in the US he found he could heat a house for six months, in temperatures of -20C (-4F), for just £60. As a result, he has withering contempt for environmentalists’ opposition to fracking. “You see, gas in America is incredibly cheap, because of fracking,” he says. But what about the risk of triggering earthquakes? He rolls his eyes.

“Sure enough, that’s true, there will be an increase. But they’re tiny little tremors, they would be imperceptible. The only trouble is that you can detect them. The curse of my life has been that I’ve spent a lot of time inventing devices that are exceedingly sensitive. And the moment somebody can detect something, they’re going to attach a number to it, and then they make a fuss about it.” He chuckles, then pauses. “I’m not anti-green in the sense that I’m in favour of polluting the world with every damn thing we make. I think we’ve got to be careful. But I’m afraid, human nature being what it is, the thing gets exaggerated out of all proportion, and the greens have behaved deplorably instead of being reasonably sensible.”

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Rossiter says the political Left in the U.S. is using climate fears to achieve a “welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism.”

“They want to use the concern about the climate catastrophe in what they called Archimedes giant lever, to move away from industrialization, toward this postindustrial non-fossil fuel, non-corporate world,” he said.

Rossiter dismisses CO2 as the climate control knob.

“We always, as humans, are looking for cause-and-effect, but it’s extremely difficult to find it in a complex system like the Earth’s climate over thousands of years,” he explained.

“It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause,” he said.

Rossiter had harsh words for the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, and its claim that they were 95% certainty of human caused climate change.

“When the IPCC uses words like very likely, like 95% likely or somewhat like, about 90% — that’s an alarm bell for people who know statistics. We never use those words — 95% certainty — unless we have a standard deviation and we are estimating how often we get within two standard deviations of the mean. That’s the nature of statistics,” he explained.

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

“At the Institute of Policy Studies I was obviously very lonely because nobody would debate me and finally fired me for having an article in Wall Street Journal,” Rossiter said.

“Two days later I was handed my walking papers from 23 years association with that think tank,” he added.

“They felt that it was best that I’ve been terminated because my views on African development and climate change and climate justice were divergent from theirs. So I’m willing to express my opinions and have them come out. This is the first time I’ve expressed an opinion that was alien to the left,” he said.

Rossiter says the left has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to dissent on global warming.

“One item out of everything that is the agenda for the institute policy studies I’ve expressed disagreement with and I’m gone,” he noted.

Rossiter’s failure to follow his colleagues on the Left on the claims of global warming has left him isolated.

“What we are supposed to do as professors is follow the data to our conclusion, and then put it out there to be debated,” he explained.

But his colleagues refuse to debate global warming.

This seems to lend some more validity that backing out of the Paris Agreement in addition to it being non-binding and therefore basically useless, is a good idea.  We are throwing money away...according to scientists!

What else should I be taking into account?


Jeffrey Katzenberg Pens Open Letter to Hollywood After Trump Victory

It's now been a week since this heart-wrenching, devastating event. However, this morning the sun still rose, the world still turned, the flag still waved.

As this ultimate national pastime continues, I just want to make sure that, whatever path President-elect Trump chooses, the way of Candidate Trump will not be our way. We must not emulate him by creating a demagogue movement of our own that defames tens of millions of people who don't share our point of view.

We could respond to hate with hate and fear with fear. However, if we do this, then we are no different and no better, and everyone loses.

...and that's exactly what is happening with all the rioting and violent demonstrations.

While I can still read some anger and resentment, Katzenberg does seem to say what I've been waiting for a Democrat representative to say...and more so, Hillary to say.

Apologetics and Theology / Threats on Mom?
« on: November 15, 2016, 12:44:38 pm »
Mom who snapped photo with Clinton on post-defeat walk getting threats

I'm wondering why there would be any reason to threaten this mother?

Anyone else hear any other specifics on this?

Apologetics and Theology / Anti-Trump Violence continues
« on: November 10, 2016, 01:14:26 pm »
Shock Video: Black Mob Viciously Beats White Trump Voter

When will the #neverTrump people start to call out against these actions?

Anti-Trump protests turn violent:

When do we come the HRC slogan reads; Stronger a nation?  Or is it that those words ring true ONLY with HRC or a democrat as POTUS?

Twitter Erupts With Calls For Donald Trump To Be Assassinated

Is it all of a sudden right to call of a POTUS assassination just because it's a person you disagree with?

Apologetics and Theology / Poetic Justice
« on: November 08, 2016, 12:05:05 pm »

I'm not necessarily completely against hunting, though I am completely against trophy hunting or sport hunting...but I do find this slightly humorous considering the elk skewered the hunter AFTER being killed.  I don't know if the hunter in this case was trophy hunting or hunting to feed his family this winter.

Man Kills Elk, Elk Impales Man Moments Later

The 69-year-old then attempted to drag the carcass up a steep hill with his four-wheeler, according to The Oregonian.

While Heeter was driving up the hill, the front end of the ATV flipped. Heeter rolled backward ― right onto the elk’s antler,

Apologetics and Theology / NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails
« on: November 03, 2016, 10:34:06 am »
BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury

But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
•Money laundering
•Child exploitation
•Sex crimes with minors (children)
•Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
•Obstruction of justice
•Other felony crimes

NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department’s highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices

“What’s in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach,” the NYPD Chief said. “There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold my own press conference if it comes to that.”

The NYPD Chief said once Comey saw the alarming contents of the emails he was forced to reopen a criminal probe against Clinton.

“People are going to prison,” he said.

Meanwhile, FBI sources said Abedin and Weiner were cooperating with federal agents, who have taken over the non-sexting portions the case from NYPD. The husband-and-wife Clinton insiders  are both shopping for separate immunity deals, sources said.

Seems serious, doesn't it?

Trump’s Teen Jane Doe Rape Accuser Disappears Again

That she's decided not to do the press conference isn't any indication that the accusation is false, but it doesn't really help either.

Maybe they see a Trump win as POTUS and would rather wait to make the accusation against a sitting POTUS...?

Katie’s press conference and sudden cancelation is just the most recent turn in a bizarre case that started in April of this year, when Katie filed a civil lawsuit in California accusing Trump of rape. As a reporter covering Katie’s case, I wasn’t surprised at Katie’s no-show. Through lawyers and handlers, I have been promised interviews on several occasions—meetings and phone calls which have been ultimately withdrawn, usually at the last minute.

Pages : [1] 2 3 4