Skip to content

US: Bad news; your country is in even deeper shit than you thought…

October 8, 2013

A Supreme Court Justice actually believes in the Devil.

I even believe in the Devil.

You do?

Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …

If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?

You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore.

No.

It’s because he’s smart.

So what’s he doing now?

What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

In Conversation With Antonin Scalia — New York Magazine

Or as EL Wisty put it in Beyond the Fringe:

So all in all I’d rather have been a judge than a miner.

And what is more, being a miner, as soon as you are too old and tired and sick and stupid to do the job properly, you have to go. Well, the very opposite applies with the judges.

Advertisements
17 Comments
  1. Jon permalink

    Maybe that’s what happens when YOU doubt. When I doubt, I am expressing my opinion that there isn’t enough evidence for me to form a positive belief. Perhaps we are using different dictionaries — what’s the name of yours?

    I desire some chocolate ice cream very much right now. But I doubt that we have any, and I’m pretty sure that no matter how much I desire it, I can’t make it appear in the freezer. If you think you can, let me know.

  2. Well, if you merit it, you might see evidence. But doubt usually is not rewarded by evidence. When a person doubts, a person is expressing that he does not wish to love that which he seeks; he is saying “I do not desire, therefore I doubt.” If one does not desire the Lover, then the Lover, in great dismay, does not appear.

  3. Jon permalink

    I don’t refuse to acknowledge it, I just have no inclination to believe it. It’s that evidence thing again, you know?

  4. I’m sorry, Jon. I think it only boils down to your refusal to acknowledge much that has a religious label. May God grant you healing and acceptance of things spiritual. Amen.

  5. Jon permalink

    Still no evidence, then? Just repeated assertions that you are right and everyone else — who outnumber Catholics by six to one — must be wrong, even thought their beliefs are just as well founded and sincerely held as yours. But it’s amusing to hear you say about Mohammed exactly what the Jews say about Jesus: “He was a nice boy until he got all those strange ideas.”

    It really boils down to whether you believe:

    a) Miracles occurred.

    or

    b) Somebody made up a story about miracles occurring, and lots of people believed it.

    We have plenty of evidence that b) happens pretty much every day: see here, for instance.

    We have no evidence that a) happens ever.

    It doesn’t seem like a particularly hard choice to me.

    As for being ‘rigid in my position’, I can without difficulty list a dozen events which would immediately convince me that I was wrong. Can you think of even one event that would convince you that you were?

  6. By refusing to accept the Bible, written in part to contain history, the rest of your argument is without merit. You are biased and rigid in your position. No offense intended. Regarding the prophet Mohammed, he is another case of an individual…Interestingly, he was on a good path in the beginning when he was influenced by Judeo-Christian traditions; the 5 “pillars of Islam” are actually rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition which was his foundation. The challenges with both Mormonism and Islam (amongst others) is that their description of God (and they all have the Judeo-Christian foundation for who God Is) varies from that description from which they deviated.

  7. Jon permalink

    Haven’t we been through this already? The only reason to believe that the events of Jesus’s life were witnessed by anyone is because the accounts say they were. In Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens tells us that hundreds of people witnessed the death of Bill Sikes; but they’re all just as fictional as he is. You don’t make an imaginary story any more credible by inventing imaginary witnesses.

    The authenticity of Josephus is in doubt, but even if the relevant passages were written by him, they say nothing about the allegedly divine nature of Jesus or the miracles that are supposed to demonstrate it. Eusebius was much later again, so he can’t have had any direct knowledge of the events he describes.

    The miraculous history of Joseph Smith, however, was witnessed and testified to by hundreds of people who exist independently in the historical records of the time. I don’t see how you can logically accept one and refuse to accept the other. And the Greek Gods are attested to by many more eye-witnesses whom we know independently to have existed than the life of Jesus. If you think that calling them ‘myths’ is enough to prove them false, then I’m quite happy to do the same for the stories about Jesus.

    Do you also disbelieve that Mohammed travelled to Heaven on a winged horse? Why? That’s an extremely well-attested story too.

  8. Well, a “myth” is a myth; that answer’s that question – and who is there to say “Homer is not a myth”? As for Joseph Smith, we know by his personal history that he is unreliable; besides, he is a single case – a single possible point of failure (and there are others who have been like him). This is not so with Jesus Christ – who was surrounded not only by 12+ apostles, but many more disciples, Roman soldiers, priests who witnessed what He said and did. Jesus’ existence is also supported by the accounts of Roman historian Josephus and by Eusebius in his History of the Church. Remember, the Gospels are eyewitness accounts predominantly; John’s Gospel takes us deeper into the heart/Mind of God. Paul corroborates everything in his letters as well. The Acts of the Apostles is a book of the history of the early Church. We have come this far, not because we liked a myth, but because our forefathers experienced a powerful truth and passed it on to us. It was the same with our Jewish forefathers who experienced God in Egypt and beyond.

  9. Jon permalink

    Is there any more reason to believe the Gospels than, say, the Greek myths recounted as truth by Homer and Hesiod. or Joseph Smith’s account of his visit from the Angel Moroni? These are also ‘recordings of eyewitness accounts’ — or purport to be.

  10. Yes, if you study the Gospels (which are a recording of things which happened) you will find evidence. There is no reason for the authors to lie; there is no conspiracy. History is a recording of eye witness accounts.

    Here is what Pope Francis had to say today:

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-christians-must-guard-against-devils-slyness/

  11. Jon permalink

    I don’t see any evidence there, do you?

  12. Coincidentally, today’s Gospel reading in the Catholic Church (world-wide) touches on demonic possession. Here it is from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops website:

    http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/101113.cfm

  13. No, that’s okay. Be happy that you do not know evidence. 🙂

  14. Jon permalink

    If you have some; bearing in mind that evidence of X is material which convinces rational people who don’t believe X already, not merely those who do.

  15. Would you like evidence?

  16. Jon permalink

    And your evidence for this is…?

  17. It is true that the Devil exists. I don’t get your point.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: