[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Then, yes there are perhaps some who profess to be Catholic that Christ might say to them “I never knew you” and there may be some who are not Catholic that Christ welcomes. >>>[/quote]Mystical body of Christ inside and outside.[quote]jakerz96 wrote: I think you are trying to make your case for “the invisible church”, but I don’t think that what you are doing will truly accomplish this. >>>[/quote] Unless you can see who’s who? It’s accomplished. Very good Jake. Chris must be busy. True faithful believers, those who wind up in heaven, the mystical body of Christ, yes the invisible universal church, in and out of your visible church and mine. It is not possible to establish any more than a semantic difference between the protestant doctrine I hold and the exact same logically necessary but unstated idea that Rome is shackled to. Until of course she claims either that every Catholic goes to heaven or knowledge of the final judgment of every person. Actually with the creative ways she gets non Catholics into heaven, she actually would be bound to universalism or knowledge of every persons final state. Chris had this all along. I know he did.[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<< Why did you have to ask the same question 3 times with little nuances to get here when you knew the answer the whole time? >>>[/quote]Because as you wisely recognized I was laying a trap and it would spring much more effectively if I could get one of you guys to say what I obviously knew was the church’s teaching.[quote]Tirib: [quote]jakerz96 wrote: Do I have to go dig up some imprimatured (word?) declaration from the church herself saying as much? Come on.[/quote]Not necessary if you are being clear in your questioning.[/quote]I don’t know how much clearer I could have been. Any Catholics wind up in hell or not?
[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]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Truth is truth whether it’s in the bible or not. They ask good questions and I am not afraid of the challenge.[/quote]
Wow, you’re not afraid? Well good for you big fella!
Go get em.
[/quote]
I am not trying to 'Get ‘em’ I am trying to answer their questions with out looking like an arrogant ass.[/quote]
Oh…so that’s what you’re going for. I get it…well keep trying.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Any Catholics wind up in hell or not?
[/quote]
NOBODY KNOWS…Get that through your skull. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not be necessity.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Where are my quotes Pat?[/quote]
I provided the links forums in which they exist. If you want to sift through some 3000+ posts go ahead, you know what you said, so does Chris and so do I. Don’t act like you have been arguing in good faith.
Besides I provided a direct quote I happened to memorize. Here it is again…“If there are ANY Catholics in heaven it would only be by the extreme mercy of God.” ← did you or did you not say that? Guess what, I am Catholic and damn proud of it. I don’t have to pass judgments on others to make my self feel good about it.
I addressed the tenets you profess to believe, how they are not scriptural and hence provided specifically why they are mistaken. You tell us we evil, a whore, and from Satan and never back it up. Except some people 500 years ago did something wrong. Well there plenty of corruption to go around and no faith is immune. You hung people for being witches 400 years ago. So your corruption is fresher.
And why are you so afraid to answer peoples questions? You skate around them, you dodge them, you pretend to have a trillion watt light bulb that apparently you’ve never used. Perhaps you are blinded by you own hubris and smugness.
Not so fast. This would be akin to saying that there is no visible Church in your eyes. Let’s take the Old Testament for a ride for a moment. There is God’s chosen people correct? But there are people outside that that have God’s favor (Melchizedek sp? for one, but I am sure there are others). So, there is a visible chose people, but also others connected to them somehow. It is no different now. There is a visible Church and there are those imperfectly connected to it. Sorry man, I think it is way more than a semantic difference.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
If you read your question carefully you will see that you asked me your first question again, and I told you I would bold the answer, not part of the answer. You see the period after the “yes” that usually means a complete thought. So, the first sentence answers your first question and my second answer answers your second question. And, why would I think that Catholics going to Hell is merciful, use your brain.
Well, I can’t say because I can’t search the hearts of men, I don’t know if someone is in state mortal sin or has blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. Hypothetically, yes. However, as I pointed out I assume Judas is in Hell because of his treachery and greed, and he was a Catholic, one of the first. He was an Apostle of Jesus, Bishop as we call them, he taught infallibly Jesus’ message.
[quote]pat wrote:
[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]
Judas was Jewish and the real tragedy for Judas is that he could have been forgiven, not that he betrayed.[/quote]
Yeah, the first Catholics were Hellenistic Jews (even Jesus), which makes makes sense why Catholicism is correct and the full faith over all the denominations (not saying Catholicism is, but the rest are). Jesus wanted to spread Judaism (with the final or New Covenant) to the world, and he died for it, he died to save his people. G-d didn’t make His covenants in vain, and as Jesus said not one iotta of the law, not one dot of the law shall pass until all has been finished.
[quote]SRT08 wrote:
Let’s be clear here, the church at the time was in no way or form called the Roman Catholic Church.[/quote]
From reading the Early Church Fathers, it sounds exactly like the Catholic Church. And, was called catholic by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110.
Then explain how we can trace our roots back to the Matthew 16:18?
Uh, if you read Matthew 16:18, Peter is the foundation which Jesus built his Church. Jesus is the corner stone.
This is ignorance, when did Rome ever sell free passes to sin? I think you’re thinking indulgences, which are not passes to sin. People would still have to go to the sacrament of confession or penance and confess their sins. The indulgences were and are penance for our sins that are usually prayed. Nothing to do with sin, it had to do with penance. Which more and more the Protestant churches seem to forget that are called to penance. And, as well it wasn’t Rome selling Indulgences it was a Bishop in Germany selling indulgences to help fund a building.
So, God came down and gave Calvin TULIP (which wasn’t around when Calvin was alive) told him instead of continuing with the one and only Church (disregarding the schism of the East) at the time, he should break off from it and create disunity. If this is the case, maybe your god (John Calvin) should have learned the Word of G-d better because Jesus is very vocal about unity of his Church in the Bible, after all he did only create one. So, unless Jesus lied to us, there is still that one Church Jesus built on Peter. And, there is only one Church that is old enough, and there is only one Church that proclaims that Peter is the foundation of their Church, and even more pragmatic, there is only one Church that has St. Peter under one of its physical Church: The Catholic Church.
[quote]
Yes, the quote is extra-biblical.[/quote]
Okay, then you can’t use it. If you can’t show us where it is in the Bible, you just can’t plain use it. You hold to Sola Scriptura, if it is not in the Bible I don’t want to hear it from you guys. Because I’m not going to let you guys yell Sola Scriptura one minute and try to use it against me and the next minute ignore it to prove your point. If you believe Sola Scriptura, then that is what you believe. Stick to it, don’t be intellectual cowards.
[quote]
It is not inherently wrong because it is not word for word in the Bible.[/quote]
So you’re using proof text?
So, you mean when G-d said it was “good” after he created us, that he he made a mistake and he didn’t know that we are inherently by nature evil? That is a little blasphemous don’t you think their, Calvinist?
[quote]
Does God make us in his image? Yes.[/quote]
So, we are inherently good. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
[quote]
Is that image tarnished through our choices? If you don’t believe that, you must not have kids. Anyone with kids can answer these questions: Who taught your children to lie to you when they think they’re in trouble?[/quote]
Other adults. However, I never lied to my parents.
Their friends and adults. I never hit out of any kind of anger except righteous indignation, like Jesus did.
This is the weakest intellectual argument, I have ever heard.
That’s call curiosity, it might be because they picked up the trait from you. I never touched the stove, I never touched a light bulb, I never stole, I never stuck my finger in a socket, I never did any of this crap. Why, because my dad didn’t. We learn from our parents and we learn from our friends. Again weak intellectual argument, sounds like “I can’t help it if my kids are bad, it’s the Devil!”
[quote]
This is the sinful nature passed down to us all through the decisions of Adam and Eve, on display in it’s simplest form.[/quote]
Then you don’t understand Original Sin.
You just said that we are inherently evil by nature. So, what is it are we evil by nature or are we good by nature. If we are evil by nature we are sin incarnate, if we are “carriers of a disease” (which is incorrect) then we are still inherently good.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
Where did I contradict that? I am merely saying that the most important message of Christianity is the acceptance of Christ as savior.
That would be the most important message. Sure there are other things of importance. But they all pale compared to the MOST important part.
[/quote]
You just said before that some of it was unimportant for all believes to believe, then you said they pale in comparison. Which is it, are they unimportant and don’t need to be believed, or are they important just not as important? Because you said the former, and because of that I want to know which doctrine is unimportant? Is it infant baptism, is it faith and works, is it love God, is it love thy neighbor as yourself, is it the Eucharist, or what, what is it that is unimportant that not all believes should believe?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Then, yes there are perhaps some who profess to be Catholic that Christ might say to them “I never knew you” and there may be some who are not Catholic that Christ welcomes. >>>[/quote]Mystical body of Christ inside and outside.
[/quote]
Nope, no salvation that is not through the Church.
[quote]
Unless you can see who’s who? It’s accomplished. Very good Jake. Chris must be busy. True faithful believers, those who wind up in heaven, the mystical body of Christ, yes the invisible universal church,[/quote]
You are mistaking the invisible Church (which doesn’t exist unless you got some sick paint) and being saved through the Catholic Church while not being a formal card carrying Catholic.
Nope you are either part of the Church or not, and as I said you don’t have to be a Card carrying formal member to be part of the visible Church. The Church teaches this, but instead you jump up and down and say see invisible Church, invisible Church.
Yes there is, you have to twist the Word in order to make yours valid, we don’t. Big difference.
Why would this be necessary? It is not by the way, but please tell me why it is necessary.
Catholics are universalism in the sense that Jesus’ promise was for all people no depending on their skin, location, language, gender, age.
They could, be we don’t know that (except for Judas, I still got my money on him) the others, could have gone to Heaven, never know. Church never declares anyone in Hell, because we’d have to know their hearts.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
Where did I contradict that? I am merely saying that the most important message of Christianity is the acceptance of Christ as savior.
That would be the most important message. Sure there are other things of importance. But they all pale compared to the MOST important part.
[/quote]
You just said before that some of it was unimportant for all believes to believe, then you said they pale in comparison. Which is it, are they unimportant and don’t need to be believed, or are they important just not as important? Because you said the former, and because of that I want to know which doctrine is unimportant? Is it infant baptism, is it faith and works, is it love God, is it love thy neighbor as yourself, is it the Eucharist, or what, what is it that is unimportant that not all believes should believe?[/quote]
Like you don’t know what I mean (eye roll). I’ll say it for you one more time and that will be it: Accepting Christ as the savior is THE most important thing that you can do. I know Catholics like to add lots of things — kneel down–stand up—sit down. Bless yourself, light a candle, bow at the cross! Pray to a Saint anyone? And don’t forget to buy your way out of purgatory. Oh and say the Hail Mary 137 times if you’ve sinned-- LOL
Hey, thanks for helping me get that off my chest. I was a Catholic before I became free of the dogma and I’ve never expressed those things quite like that before.
Thanks BrotherChris - You really do help out around here
Oh and none of that is IMPORTANT.
[quote]pat wrote:
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]
First, you assume you’re interpreting AND applying what you read correctly. And, do you realize you just wrote “theory” and “prove” in the same sentence? A theory cannot “prove” anything. A theory is a theory - “nothing more” as you say above. And, it is NOT proven that “nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused.”
[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]
You did not address my point so I’m not sure why you quoted me.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?[/quote]
It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their religious beliefs are right. No amount of logic or evidence will make any difference, because they have fully surrendered to their cognitive biases.
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer. Our current list of elementary particles, which by definition have no substructure and can’t be reduced further, includes leptons, gauge bosons, and quarks. Maybe we will modify the list as our knowledge grows, and maybe not.
The point is that scientists generally accept that elementary particles exist. There is no regression problem if these elementary particles have always existed, independent of time. Photons are a type of gauge boson, and since they travel at the speed of light they are in a zero-time existence.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[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]
Where did I contradict that? I am merely saying that the most important message of Christianity is the acceptance of Christ as savior.
That would be the most important message. Sure there are other things of importance. But they all pale compared to the MOST important part.
[/quote]
You just said before that some of it was unimportant for all believes to believe, then you said they pale in comparison. Which is it, are they unimportant and don’t need to be believed, or are they important just not as important? Because you said the former, and because of that I want to know which doctrine is unimportant? Is it infant baptism, is it faith and works, is it love God, is it love thy neighbor as yourself, is it the Eucharist, or what, what is it that is unimportant that not all believes should believe?[/quote]
Like you don’t know what I mean (eye roll). I’ll say it for you one more time and that will be it: Accepting Christ as the savior is THE most important thing that you can do. I know Catholics like to add lots of things — kneel down–stand up—sit down. Bless yourself, light a candle, bow at the cross! Pray to a Saint anyone? And don’t forget to buy your way out of purgatory. Oh and say the Hail Mary 137 times if you’ve sinned-- LOL
[/quote]
No, I don’t know what you mean. Most of that is discipline NOT doctrine. You said some doctrine was not important, what doctrine is not important, ZEB? Tell me, what is it? What did G-d tell us that is not important, please tell me, Zeb? Let me know when to listen to G-d and when not to, because how can I be saved if I don’t know which Doctrines are important to believe in? Tell me, Jesus didn’t just tell us to believe in Him, so what else did he tell us that is unimportant.
And, ZEB don’t ask anyone to pray for you ever again because you don’t believe in the communion of Saints.
You mean helping you show your ignorance of the difference between discipline and doctrine? Oh, okay, ZEB. Glad we established you don’t know the Catholic faith or general metatheological terms.
So please, tell me, ZEB, what did G-d say that is unimportant?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
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]
First, you assume you’re interpreting AND applying what you read correctly. And, do you realize you just wrote “theory” and “prove” in the same sentence? A theory cannot “prove” anything. A theory is a theory - “nothing more” as you say above. And, it is NOT proven that “nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused.”
[/quote]
I am not interpreting anything. Second, if I made a mistake then show me what it is. Don’t say I repeated or interpreted anything wrong unless you can show me. Otherwise what the point of saying it. Did I repeat anything wrong? If so I will correct it. Don’t tell me I may have made a mistake and then not prove it.
I am using arguments others use to show that even if said theory is correct, it still does not deny causation. So yes, I used theory and prove in the same sentence, because whether or not theory is correct, causation stands regardless…
All things are caused save for that which caused it, is a deductive logical necessity. If you can prove it wrong then do so. If you can find even one tiny thing that exists with out a cause, then tell me what it is.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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]
How about addressing the unequivocal scriptures that I posted, instead of dodging the point like you usually do? It’s like you’re incapable of having a constructive discussion. Stop judging me for admitting I don’t have all the answers, and actually address my points.
I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times, and I am flabbergasted how anyone could say that Jesus didn’t have a message. You believe in a puppeteer god that came to condemn men rather than offering the gift of salvation to all who would accept. It is a fabrication based on Calvin’s twisted philosophy, and completely misrepresents the core message of the new testament.[/quote]
I do believe we’re wasting our time.
Any way, to save some time…What kind of energy being the uncaused-cause?[/quote]
It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone that is 100% convinced that their religious beliefs are right. No amount of logic or evidence will make any difference, because they have fully surrendered to their cognitive biases.
That’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer. Our current list of elementary particles, which by definition have no substructure and can’t be reduced further, includes leptons, gauge bosons, and quarks. Maybe we will modify the list as our knowledge grows, and maybe not.
The point is that scientists generally accept that elementary particles exist. There is no regression problem if these elementary particles have always existed, independent of time. Photons are a type of gauge boson, and since they travel at the speed of light they are in a zero-time existence.
[/quote]
It’s a waste of time reasoning with somebody who doesn’t reason and acts like a robe wearing Maharishi trying to lead one to the conclusion of predestination.
Correct, elemetarty particles exist, and are thought to have a ‘string like nature’, so in a sense possibly divisible in sense?
Wait Bodyguard, am I right? Please fact check me here.
It still begs the question where did they come from, and what guides what they do and why?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
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]
First, you assume you’re interpreting AND applying what you read correctly. And, do you realize you just wrote “theory” and “prove” in the same sentence? A theory cannot “prove” anything. A theory is a theory - “nothing more” as you say above. And, it is NOT proven that “nothing exists uncaused, save for that which caused with out being caused.”
[/quote]
I am not interpreting anything. Second, if I made a mistake then show me what it is. Don’t say I repeated or interpreted anything wrong unless you can show me. Otherwise what the point of saying it. Did I repeat anything wrong? If so I will correct it. Don’t tell me I may have made a mistake and then not prove it.
I am using arguments others use to show that even if said theory is correct, it still does not deny causation. So yes, I used theory and prove in the same sentence, because whether or not theory is correct, causation stands regardless…
All things are caused save for that which caused it, is a deductive logical necessity. If you can prove it wrong then do so. If you can find even one tiny thing that exists with out a cause, then tell me what it is.[/quote]
There is no evidence the universe was “caused”. None. So stop it. The best you can say is that there are promising theories that the “known universe” was caused by the big bang. And the “known universe” is still very “unknowable”. And big bang theory is still subject to dispute. We cannot say what existed prior to any such cause (or “bang”), if any. Your “deductive logical necessity” is trapped in your perception of the world, like the one dimensional creature on flatland, to use a TP thought experiment. You are trying to “perceive” and “think” and then apply theories that only have math behind them. No one “thought” or “perceived” such theories. They are math theories at the end of the day. You’re taking cold hard advanced math and theorems, dressing them up in your 3 dimensional world which includes a potentially faulty perception of time, and you’re using them to support your opinions on religion, which I repeat, the latter is a matter of faith. You’re better off arguing your scriptures.
Anyway, these threads ALWAYS end the same way. With frustration. Wars have been waged about this nonsense - don’t go fooling yourself that you’ll make any headway with the opposition.