YES!!! I love that logic. This book said somebody would call out the clear contradictions and that is proof that it is still true! YES! hahahahahahaha These arguments get too hilarious. Blind faith is the driving vehicle of self-deceit.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s interesting to watch you guys draw lines in the sand and argue about such things that we do not (and may never) know. We are very far from unlocking the secrets to the universe (or universes, or all of creation for that matter).
To watch you guys draw battle lines over infinite regressions, movers, causes, etc., is a fools errand and an exercise in philosophy only. And at the end of the day, you all may be arguing over nothing more than the words of man struggling to find his place in this life.
Firstly, you need to believe in “the divinely inspired word” and that God has not spoken to anyone since the bronze age and, that he never spoke prior to Judaism or Christianity. And then you need to believe that the all-powerful needs a literary agent (man) to communicate with his creation.
I don’t know the answers, but as someone not dogmatically tied to one belief or the other, I can see the forest thru the trees a bit better than some of you. I think in any search for truth, you need to abandon your preconceived notions of what you have become comfortable with and begin the journey anew, critically evaluating all claims in their entirety.
I read and consider these claims and see the hand of man at every single turn, where apparently many of you see the hand of God. Anyway, just my opinion. But the debates about the universe are clearly ridiculous. As we sit, the universe could easily be anything you can imagine. We just don’t know. [/quote]
Are you suggesting we give up and not try? That would be a fools errand.
Philosophy is the core behind all disciplines. It all started with a philosophical question which then launched in to independent study. Further Philosophical truths if they are indeed truths cannot be violated, by anything. If they are then they the argument was flawed.
The cosmological argument form is valid and solid until proven otherwise. The guy who originally came up with it (Aristotle) was not familiar with divinely inspired doctrine which in itself is intriguing. It’s has survived unrefuted for 2 millennia, which is a pretty good track record for any argument. I don’t believe it can be though the possibility exists. But you don’t have to know everything about everything for it to be true.
I don’t know if the universe is all that exists, or if we are just a part of a plaque molecule on some giant’s tooth. Still does not invalidate philosophical cosmology.
Debate about things is a learning process. Besides a lot of really smart folk get paid a lot to learn, philosophize and theorize about the universe they don’t think it’s silly. So I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. For me it’s fun. My son likes video games, I like this.
But to each his own. You don’t like it don’t do it…[/quote]
You spent quite a bit of time in this thread defending your words from becoming strawmen, please do not do the same to mine buy assigning them your meaning.
When I said a fool’s errand, I did not intend to imply that such musings were not worthy pursuits, but that to draw battle lines and conclusions were.
Theories about the universe are just that - theories. I do not believe we will ever know where, when and if it started or if there is but one universe. We can’t go visit it like we can the bottom of the ocean - and even that is largely unexplored. There are things we will just never know because of the enormity of space.
The bigger philosophical questions are better served by exploring why we believe God needed a literary agent (man) to communicate his alleged message. Why did he not communicate truthfully and fully prior to the doctrines you embrace. Why is this phenomena of the “divinely inspired word” so prevalent throughout man’s history and why do factions of man rebuke the tenets of one, for their own?
I study it, consider it, subscribing to no dogma, and see the hand of man - not God. I sure hope God is hear, I hope he is with us. I don’t see him in the books you argue about. I see him in this vast unknowable universe, in nature and in the best of each of us.
My idea of a God is not a petulant jealous tyrant that caused floods and plagues. Those are qualities of man. I’m probably the worst guy to have in this thread 
Sorry for the intrusion. But seriously, trying to use cosmology to make religious arguments is faulty. There should be a fact in there somewhere in the foundation of your argument when you’re trying to build a case. To rely on theories that cannot be proven is building a house of cards. [/quote]
Precisely how is it faulty?
And no battle lines have been drawn, we’re merely having a discussion. If I made a straw man, please point it out to me.[/quote]
Well, for starters, no one here is is a theoretical physicist. And TP tends to get butchered when used by us Next, you’re using speculative TP theories to support your religious notions. You’re using an unknown as a logical pinning to support another unknown, the latter of which relies solely on faith.[/quote]
Nobody here is claim to be a TP. Their theories are handy for supporting causal relationship. We’re not trying to do what they do. Further, the discussion is about God. God is the creator. If you consider him something different we are not talking about the same thing. I use their damn good speculative theories to prove that nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused. Nothing more. I am not sure why think that the postulations by people with a lot of letters behind their names is off limits? We can’t talk about and use it? Why? Is it sacred in some way? We can only butcher it if we regurgitate the information incorrectly. If we have not, then we have not done anybody any injustice. We’re not debating their validity.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I caution Christians not to listen to the ranting’s of an agnostic/atheist. There are many instances written about in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that even those who walked with Christ had disagreements. Our disagreements do not separate us as much as our agreements unite us. The most important thing that all Christians share is that we accept Christ and will indeed spend eternity in heaven. And those who do not will suffer eternal punishment. The rest is all fun to debate but unimportant compared to the true meaning of Christianity.[/quote]
Where do I find a table or paper to tell me which which doctrines are unimportant or important?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I caution Christians not to listen to the ranting’s of an agnostic/atheist. There are many instances written about in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that even those who walked with Christ had disagreements. Our disagreements do not separate us as much as our agreements unite us. The most important thing that all Christians share is that we accept Christ and will indeed spend eternity in heaven. And those who do not will suffer eternal punishment. The rest is all fun to debate but unimportant compared to the true meaning of Christianity.[/quote]
Where do I find a table or paper to tell me which which doctrines are unimportant or important?[/quote]
I’ll be more clear, doctrine is not nearly as important as the fact that you’ve accepted Christ as the savior. Whatever else you want to drag along with that matters little in comparison to the heart of the message.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Yes I cannot discount their validity, because I don’t know what their relationship of the almighty is actually like.
I think Christianity is the best one, because of Jesus. But they think their is the best for their own reasons. But even in scripture Jesus, shows ways of ‘knowing’ him with out having to be a literate bible reading. Of course I am biased, but I do not believe faithful people of good will and intent are condemned nor does the Catholic Church. My Protestant friends disagree, but like Paul stated those who have the ‘law’ are bound by it, those who do not are bound by good from the heart.
You did ask about the ‘Bible’ which is the Holy book for Christianity.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
<<< You’re using an unknown as a logical pinning to support another unknown, the latter of which relies solely on faith.[/quote]Very very good indeed. And herein folks lies the fatally flawed formula of autonomous human epistemology. As long as people of faith insist upon confronting the unbeliever on his own terms this guy will continue to be right.
[/quote]
Given the fundamental disagreements on the most pivotal questions between you and other Christian denominations, your faith leaves a lot to be desired. Obviously, choosing to believe in something not supported by logic or evidence is a fool’s errand because it leads to such irreconcilable conflicts in belief. That’s what happens when you promote “faith” over facts.[/quote]
Faith and facts should not disagree. If they do there is a problem and one of them errant. Forlife makes an excellent observation.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I caution Christians not to listen to the ranting’s of an agnostic/atheist. There are many instances written about in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that even those who walked with Christ had disagreements. Our disagreements do not separate us as much as our agreements unite us. The most important thing that all Christians share is that we accept Christ and will indeed spend eternity in heaven. And those who do not will suffer eternal punishment. The rest is all fun to debate but unimportant compared to the true meaning of Christianity.[/quote]
They are not ranting…I dare say most of them have been more respectful than supposed Christians. Truth is truth whether it’s in the bible or not. They ask good questions and I am not afraid of the challenge.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
So if it doesn’t have to be linear, and it can be reversed, do you think it’s possible for cause and effect to be simultaneous? Or for them to cause each other?[/quote]
Be simultaneous? Absolutely, 100%. Perhaps I have done a bad job, but I have been eluding to that for a long time.
The EPR paradox would be an example of that. Despite it’s name, I don’t think it’s a paradox. I am pretty sure there is a reasonable explanation for it. I just don’t know what that is.
Can the effect act on the cause yes, but its a separate event, in or out of time.
You can get poison ivy, while at the same time killing the plant, but those are two separate events.[/quote]
It’s cool to think about, isn’t it?
If simultaneous causes can occur, whereby one thing creates the other and in turn is created by the thing it creates, there is no compelling argument for an ultimate singular cause.
I don’t know if this is the genesis of the universe, or if the universe has always existed in some sense (either in or out of time), but either way I don’t believe a supernatural cause is the only possibility, or even the most likely.
I think we’re just starting to scratch the surface on these questions. Until we know a lot more than we do, the jury is still out.[/quote]
No simultaneous causation does not dispel the need for a necessary being. You still have regression to deal with. What is matter made of? What is that which makes matter made of, etc?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That was a damn good answer, thank you.
However, I do feel it more answers the question of “Why catholic and not another denomination of christianity?”
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Other religions are tricky, there is Buddhism which JPII basically called them out as being religious atheists. There is Muslims who have a half Jesus and surprisingly almost full Mary. They regard Jesus as just a man, but still the messiah and that he will return a second time before the last days to bring Allah his people to Heaven. They regard Mary as the highest creature in Heaven, definitely the highest woman, and sinless. You have the Protestants that believe in the same God, but lack the fullness of faith. You have the Jews who have the fullness of the Covenants God made with them, but lack Jesus and his new covenant.
So, there are some like the Jews and Protestants that are considered to have a religion that have partially the full religion established by God. And, then you have some like Buddhist, Taoism, &c. that share in partial salvific truth in some ways, but are much further away.
I would say that besides Judaism and Christianity (or Hellenist Judaism) all the rest are man made attempts to communicate with God and do God’s will (even if a twisted attempt), but the former are the only one’s that Catholics recognize as established for God, for the purpose of loving and worshiping God.
Pat: But something popped into my head the other day about the lack of faith and how to bring more people to the faith. I just don’t get how people can be so uncatechized in their faith. I mean all these great qualities of other faiths, we should have, we should be the ones that people copy. Yet, we seem to not do that, I have no clue why. To put it in simple terms…until we’re more Protestant than Protestants (personal relationship with Jesus), more Jewish than Jews (sacrificial works for God), more Muslim than Muslims (submissive to God at all times), more Buddhist than Buddhist (aware of our surroundings and others) we will continue to struggle up hill to bring people to the Church.
P.S. Capped, if you want to see which books are in what Category you can look here and the books are put in sections to which kind of writing they are… http://www.newadvent.org/bible/[/quote]
How in the world can those religions that pre-date Christianity and Judaism be considered “man’s attempt to communicate with God”. There is not an original theme of “God” in Christianity, Judaism or Islam that was not already espoused by religious beliefs prior. Did God only set up a one way call line before he spoke to the Jews? What exactly are you saying here?
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
I look at Mother Teresa and Ghandi in that respect. They were as pious as one can get, but didn’t bring converts in flocks, though I am sure they had a few.
People reject religion for one of two reasons generally, the problem of evil and the behaviours exampled by religious people.
There are others, some people just don’t give a shit either, that’d be a third reason. All people especially religious folk need to do better always, but I am not sure the world would convert, even if we remove one of the reasons to not participate or not like it. They’d probably find others reasons to not participate. I guess some folk just don’t like it.
No matter what your faith, it’s an individual journey.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I caution Christians not to listen to the ranting’s of an agnostic/atheist. There are many instances written about in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that even those who walked with Christ had disagreements. Our disagreements do not separate us as much as our agreements unite us. The most important thing that all Christians share is that we accept Christ and will indeed spend eternity in heaven. And those who do not will suffer eternal punishment. The rest is all fun to debate but unimportant compared to the true meaning of Christianity.[/quote]
Where do I find a table or paper to tell me which which doctrines are unimportant or important?[/quote]
The reformers who were interested in melding it to their wishes?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
So if it doesn’t have to be linear, and it can be reversed, do you think it’s possible for cause and effect to be simultaneous? Or for them to cause each other?[/quote]
Be simultaneous? Absolutely, 100%. Perhaps I have done a bad job, but I have been eluding to that for a long time.
The EPR paradox would be an example of that. Despite it’s name, I don’t think it’s a paradox. I am pretty sure there is a reasonable explanation for it. I just don’t know what that is.
Can the effect act on the cause yes, but its a separate event, in or out of time.
You can get poison ivy, while at the same time killing the plant, but those are two separate events.[/quote]
It’s cool to think about, isn’t it?
If simultaneous causes can occur, whereby one thing creates the other and in turn is created by the thing it creates, there is no compelling argument for an ultimate singular cause.
I don’t know if this is the genesis of the universe, or if the universe has always existed in some sense (either in or out of time), but either way I don’t believe a supernatural cause is the only possibility, or even the most likely.
I think we’re just starting to scratch the surface on these questions. Until we know a lot more than we do, the jury is still out.[/quote]
No simultaneous causation does not dispel the need for a necessary being. You still have regression to deal with. What is matter made of? What is that which makes matter made of, etc?[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but we don’t know that there is no fundamental particle that can’t be reduced further. For example, you mentioned string theory earlier. How do you know everything doesn’t reduce to energy? Maybe energy has always existed, and is the fundamental building block of the universe.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That was a damn good answer, thank you.
However, I do feel it more answers the question of “Why catholic and not another denomination of christianity?”
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Other religions are tricky, there is Buddhism which JPII basically called them out as being religious atheists. There is Muslims who have a half Jesus and surprisingly almost full Mary. They regard Jesus as just a man, but still the messiah and that he will return a second time before the last days to bring Allah his people to Heaven. They regard Mary as the highest creature in Heaven, definitely the highest woman, and sinless. You have the Protestants that believe in the same God, but lack the fullness of faith. You have the Jews who have the fullness of the Covenants God made with them, but lack Jesus and his new covenant.
So, there are some like the Jews and Protestants that are considered to have a religion that have partially the full religion established by God. And, then you have some like Buddhist, Taoism, &c. that share in partial salvific truth in some ways, but are much further away.
I would say that besides Judaism and Christianity (or Hellenist Judaism) all the rest are man made attempts to communicate with God and do God’s will (even if a twisted attempt), but the former are the only one’s that Catholics recognize as established for God, for the purpose of loving and worshiping God.
Pat: But something popped into my head the other day about the lack of faith and how to bring more people to the faith. I just don’t get how people can be so uncatechized in their faith. I mean all these great qualities of other faiths, we should have, we should be the ones that people copy. Yet, we seem to not do that, I have no clue why. To put it in simple terms…until we’re more Protestant than Protestants (personal relationship with Jesus), more Jewish than Jews (sacrificial works for God), more Muslim than Muslims (submissive to God at all times), more Buddhist than Buddhist (aware of our surroundings and others) we will continue to struggle up hill to bring people to the Church.
P.S. Capped, if you want to see which books are in what Category you can look here and the books are put in sections to which kind of writing they are… http://www.newadvent.org/bible/[/quote]
How in the world can those religions that pre-date Christianity and Judaism be considered “man’s attempt to communicate with God”. There is not an original theme of “God” in Christianity, Judaism or Islam that was not already espoused by religious beliefs prior. Did God only set up a one way call line before he spoke to the Jews? What exactly are you saying here?
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
I look at Mother Teresa and Ghandi in that respect. They were as pious as one can get, but didn’t bring converts in flocks, though I am sure they had a few.
People reject religion for one of two reasons generally, the problem of evil and the behaviours exampled by religious people.
There are others, some people just don’t give a shit either, that’d be a third reason. All people especially religious folk need to do better always, but I am not sure the world would convert, even if we remove one of the reasons to not participate or not like it. They’d probably find others reasons to not participate. I guess some folk just don’t like it.
No matter what your faith, it’s an individual journey. [/quote]
There’s a fourth reason, which is that people don’t believe religious claims are supported by logic or evidence.
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< How anyone could read the new testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. >>>[/quote]It is not however beyond me that people who know nothing of the living God, His Word or His Christ would think it was. Jesus Christ didn’t have a message. He was and IS the message.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Yes I cannot discount their validity, because I don’t know what their relationship of the almighty is actually like.
I think Christianity is the best one, because of Jesus. But they think their is the best for their own reasons. But even in scripture Jesus, shows ways of ‘knowing’ him with out having to be a literate bible reading. Of course I am biased, but I do not believe faithful people of good will and intent are condemned nor does the Catholic Church. My Protestant friends disagree, but like Paul stated those who have the ‘law’ are bound by it, those who do not are bound by good from the heart.
You did ask about the ‘Bible’ which is the Holy book for Christianity.
[/quote]
Do you come to the conclusion that Jesus is the son of god (at the exclusion of all others who have made or have had similar claims made about them) based on accounts of miracles or something specific about his teachings?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I caution Christians not to listen to the ranting’s of an agnostic/atheist. There are many instances written about in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that even those who walked with Christ had disagreements. Our disagreements do not separate us as much as our agreements unite us. The most important thing that all Christians share is that we accept Christ and will indeed spend eternity in heaven. And those who do not will suffer eternal punishment. The rest is all fun to debate but unimportant compared to the true meaning of Christianity.[/quote]
Where do I find a table or paper to tell me which which doctrines are unimportant or important?[/quote]
I’ll be more clear, doctrine is not nearly as important as the fact that you’ve accepted Christ as the savior. Whatever else you want to drag along with that matters little in comparison to the heart of the message.
[/quote]
Okay, well explain that because didn’t Jesus tell his Apostles to teach all that he has told them? Doesn’t sound like he just said go and teach them to just accept me as their Christ and savior, or am I not understanding something?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Do you consider other religions to be other ways of communicating with God, with different names? Even religions that do not recognize Jesus as the son of god?[/quote]
Yes I cannot discount their validity, because I don’t know what their relationship of the almighty is actually like.
I think Christianity is the best one, because of Jesus. But they think their is the best for their own reasons. But even in scripture Jesus, shows ways of ‘knowing’ him with out having to be a literate bible reading. Of course I am biased, but I do not believe faithful people of good will and intent are condemned nor does the Catholic Church. My Protestant friends disagree, but like Paul stated those who have the ‘law’ are bound by it, those who do not are bound by good from the heart.
You did ask about the ‘Bible’ which is the Holy book for Christianity.
[/quote]
Do you come to the conclusion that Jesus is the son of god (at the exclusion of all others who have made or have had similar claims made about them) based on accounts of miracles or something specific about his teachings?[/quote]
Prophesy, Miracles, and Martyrs.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.
[/quote]<<< Yes. I’m sure there would be at least one that G-d would have mercy on. >>>[/quote]How bout the first part? Are there any of the over one billion baptized Catholics in good standing who would go to hell if either they died or Christ returned this minute? Pat and Jake (Jake was a bit of a surprise) walked right into where you know I’m goin with this which is why you didn’t answer. We brushed it already a week or 2 ago. Please answer that question. I am not yelling and I am not railing on anybody I am asking YOU (not Pat though he can’t help himself) a question.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< How anyone could read the new testament and conclude that Christ’s central message wasn’t love is
beyond me. >>>[/quote]It is not however beyond me that people who know nothing of the living God, His Word or His Christ would think it was. Jesus Christ didn’t have a message. He was and IS the message.
[/quote]
“Jesus Christ didn’t have a message.”
I mean WOW! Just WOW!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.
[/quote]<<< Yes. I’m sure there would be at least one that G-d would have mercy on. >>>[/quote]How bout the first part? Are there any of the over one billion baptized Catholics in good standing who would go to hell if either they died or Christ returned this minute? Pat and Jake (Jake was a bit of a surprise) walked right into where you know I’m goin with this which is why you didn’t answer. We brushed it already a week or 2 ago. Please answer that question. I am not yelling and I am not railing on anybody I am asking YOU (not Pat though he can’t help himself) a question.
[/quote]
I already answered it. I’ll bold the answer. I am sure Judas I. went to hell. He was a Catholic.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
<<< Lemme me ask you this. Are there any people of the over one billion Catholics in this world who would go to hell if they either died this minute or if Jesus returned right now? I already know the answer to this because you’ve said, but are there any non Catholics who would go to heaven? I’m simply asking honest questions.
[/quote]<<< Yes. I’m sure there would be at least one that G-d would have mercy on. >>>[/quote]How bout the first part? Are there any of the over one billion baptized Catholics in good standing who would go to hell if either they died or Christ returned this minute? Pat and Jake (Jake was a bit of a surprise) walked right into where you know I’m goin with this which is why you didn’t answer. We brushed it already a week or 2 ago. Please answer that question. I am not yelling and I am not railing on anybody I am asking YOU (not Pat though he can’t help himself) a question.
[/quote]
I already answered it. I’ll bold the answer. I am sure Judas I. went to hell. He was a Catholic.[/quote]You’re better than this Chris, I mean that. Are you gonna tell these fine people reading this thread that your bolded YES, where you talk about God having mercy on one person is in reference to Catholics who would go to hell? Mercy on pepo[le who go to hell? If Jesus returned or they died “THIS MINUTE”, today, not in the first century? It sure sounds like that yes refers to non Catholics who go to heaven. Feel to correct and explain.
BUT, right now, February 15th 2011, are there Catholics in dioceses all over the world who would go to hell if Jesus descended from heaven with a shout and the trump of the archangel… TODAY? What if they died TODAY? I’m not picking on your church. I’ve already said there are multitudes of Protestants who would. What about Catholics?