[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.[/quote]
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus? You’re being difficult, again. This is one place we should be agreeing.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Faith defines…[/quote]
Nuh-uh, you have no faith. You’re a man of objective facts. So you should be agreeing with me.[/quote]
Why? Do you believe your religious views are based on faith, or on objective facts?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.[/quote]
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus? You’re being difficult, again. This is one place we should be agreeing.[/quote]
It wouldn’t matter, since their beliefs are based on faith just as the beliefs of Christians are based on faith.
I think you know what I’m saying. People can devoutly believe in their religion, with unshakable faith that their beliefs reflect reality, but be mistaken. Faith is not a touchstone for truth. If it were, everyone with faith would agree in their beliefs, but clearly that is not the case.
Tiribulus and Pat both have faith. Both are sincere. Yet clearly, not both are right.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.[/quote]
Why are you making this difficult? Here.
“Forlife, did you know Islam holds Jesus (or John Doe, even) to be divine?!”
And you say…?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.[/quote]
Why are you making this difficult? Here.
“Forlife, did you know Islam holds Jesus (or John Doe, even) to be divine?!”
And you say…?[/quote]
Sorry dude, I usually find your points easy to follow but have no idea where you’re going with this.
Anyway, to play along…
“That’s great. Now what about Hindus, Jews, and all the other religions with equally fervent faith, but who don’t believe Jesus was divine? Who is right and how do you know?”
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.[/quote]
Why are you making this difficult? Here.
“Forlife, did you know Islam holds Jesus (or John Doe, even) to be divine?!”
And you say…?[/quote]
Sorry dude, I usually find your points easy to follow but have no idea where you’re going with this.
Anyway, to play along…
"That’s great. Now what about Hindus, Jews, and all the other religions with equally fervent faith, but who don’t believe Jesus was divine?[/quote]
“Um, hindus and jews believe in the divinity of Jesus.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.[/quote]
Why are you making this difficult? Here.
“Forlife, did you know Islam holds Jesus (or John Doe, even) to be divine?!”
And you say…?[/quote]
Sorry dude, I usually find your points easy to follow but have no idea where you’re going with this.
Anyway, to play along…
"That’s great. Now what about Hindus, Jews, and all the other religions with equally fervent faith, but who don’t believe Jesus was divine?[/quote]
“Um, hindus and jews believe in the divinity of Jesus.”[/quote]
And every other religion believes in the divinity of Jesus?
And every other religion has the same core doctrines, outside the divinity of Jesus?
Then, in your hypothetical, I withdraw my point.
But didn’t I say that already?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.[/quote]
Why are you making this difficult? Here.
“Forlife, did you know Islam holds Jesus (or John Doe, even) to be divine?!”
And you say…?[/quote]
Sorry dude, I usually find your points easy to follow but have no idea where you’re going with this.
Anyway, to play along…
"That’s great. Now what about Hindus, Jews, and all the other religions with equally fervent faith, but who don’t believe Jesus was divine?[/quote]
“Um, hindus and jews believe in the divinity of Jesus.”[/quote]
And every other religion believes in the divinity of Jesus?
And every other religion has the same core doctrines, outside the divinity of Jesus?
Then, in your hypothetical, I withdraw my point.
But didn’t I say that already?[/quote]
I’m not asking you to imagine a hypothetical world. I’m simply asking for a response to the statment “Jews, muslims, and hindus, believe in the divinity of Jesus.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to objectively prove one is any more factually correct than the other.
Sloth wrote :
And if I told you that muslims believed in the divinity of Jesus?
Forlife:
It wouldn’t matter…[/quote]
Um…
[/quote]
What is your point? If all religions agreed on everything, I would withdraw my argument that their disagreements are evidence for the fickleness of faith.
Clearly, that’s not the case.[/quote]
Why are you making this difficult? Here.
“Forlife, did you know Islam holds Jesus (or John Doe, even) to be divine?!”
And you say…?[/quote]
Sorry dude, I usually find your points easy to follow but have no idea where you’re going with this.
Anyway, to play along…
"That’s great. Now what about Hindus, Jews, and all the other religions with equally fervent faith, but who don’t believe Jesus was divine?[/quote]
“Um, hindus and jews believe in the divinity of Jesus.”[/quote]
And every other religion believes in the divinity of Jesus?
And every other religion has the same core doctrines, outside the divinity of Jesus?
Then, in your hypothetical, I withdraw my point.
But didn’t I say that already?[/quote]
I’m not asking you to imagine a hypothetical world. I’m simply asking for a response to the statment “Jews, muslims, and hindus, believe in the divinity of Jesus.”
[/quote]
Oh. In that case, it’s an incorrect statement.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not asking you to imagine a hypothetical world. I’m simply asking for a response to the statment “Jews, muslims, and hindus, believe in the divinity of Jesus.”
[/quote]
Oh. In that case, it’s an incorrect statement.[/quote]
So, we CAN objectively discern what a religious system teaches.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not asking you to imagine a hypothetical world. I’m simply asking for a response to the statment “Jews, muslims, and hindus, believe in the divinity of Jesus.”
[/quote]
Oh. In that case, it’s an incorrect statement.[/quote]
So, we CAN objectively discern what a religious system teaches. [/quote]
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[/quote]
And my point was that those churches who accept gays consider themselves to be Christian, not Christian-flavored. They say they are truly Christian, and you say they are only Christian-flavored. It’s impossible to know who is right, because there is no objective standard by which to judge.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]
Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]
Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]
They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.
I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.
Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?
Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.
All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]
Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]
They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.
I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.
Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?
Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.
All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]
Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]
But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.
You:
[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]
Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]
They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.
I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.
Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?
Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.
All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]
Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]
The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.
It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I did, just saying I wouldn’t be surprised to see this happen at some point, given the history of religions evolving over time to reflect the morals of society (not that they ever see it this way). Many Christian churches already welcome gays, most recently American Episcopalians with their recognition of gay clergy.[/quote]
Lol, don’t worry you can surprised as it ain’t going to happen. The Catholic Church will never recognize same-sex marriage as it is not possible as it is not actually marriage.
That is (accepting gays) what reflects the morals of society today? Accepting gays? Well, then society is by and far behind the Catholic Church. We’ve been doing it for quite sometime.
Not only do we accept gays, we convert them, baptize them, and make them productive citizens of society, we also hire them without discrimination (ultimately, we’re the only ones that will be protecting gays when the tides turn back to prejudice against them). What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.
The Catholic Church doesn’t see gays and straights, first we see persons with inherent dignity to be treated with certain level of respect as all are children of God. This is why the Catholic Church is one of the few religions that still advocate visiting prisoners.
So you maybe correct, some religions may accept gay marriage, but never worry the Catholic Church will still be its old, with open arms while rejecting modernism and teaching sinners to repent of their sins and become virtuous.
So, yes forlife we accept you, but we don’t accept you sinning and we won’t recognize your marriage to another man.[/quote]
Like I said, religions never admit they’re changing with the times. They always position doctrinal changes as “further enlightenment” or “divine clarification”. Yes, even the Catholic church has changed its doctrines over time. I know you won’t see it that way, but I disagree.[/quote]
Prove that doctrine has changed over time within the Catholic Church.