And, ZEB don’t ask anyone to pray for you ever again because you don’t believe in the communion of Saints.[/quote]
More Catholic doctrine…no sorry I don’t buy into that. As I said I grew up Catholic and attended “religious instructions” every Tuesday afternoon. How I hated that along with the absolutely wacky Nuns. No, no thanks. Good for you if you like it, but I’ll pass. By the way will you pray for me?
[quote]
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.[/quote]
No for letting me say those things about the Catholic church. It was a horrible experience…really horrible. And this is the first time I’ve ever expressed what I felt about the Catholic church in writing, or otherwise. Thanks for that. And as far as doctrine or discipline, I don’t really care. The Catholic Church has far too many things that stand between a person and God. Now go pray to saint and get back to me.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
More Catholic doctrine…no sorry I don’t buy into that. As I said I grew up Catholic and attended “religious instructions” every Tuesday afternoon. How I hated that along with the absolutely wacky Nuns. No, no thanks. Good for you if you like it, but I’ll pass. By the way will you pray for me?
[/quote]
So, you dislike the parts in the Bible that you disagree with (see below)? So you dislike those that consecrate themselves to the Lord? And, why would you ask me to pray for you when those in Heaven are more righteous than any person on earth?
So you’re a bigot as well? You mock my faith? You mock “things” in the way between G-d and man? Do you not recognize that G-d put Mary between Jesus and the world? Do you not recognize the blank in your eye? Do you no longer sin? Do you no longer stumble or make others stumble?
Zeb, All Christians are in connection with each other throught the Body of Christ.
Proof:
2 Cor 2:5 says, But if any one has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure-not to put it too severly-to you all.
2 Cor 1:5 says, For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.
Zeb, Every Christian is, in fact, a member of the Body of Christ
Proof:
Romans 12:4-5 says, "For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are on body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
1 Cor 12:12-13 says, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
Zeb, All members, both dead and alive are members, as death does not separate us from the Body of Christ.
Proof:
Rom. 8:38-39 says, "For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, no things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of G-d in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Zeb, And there is but one and only one body, both in Heaven and on Earth which is called and considered the Body of Christ.
Proof:
Eph 2:15-16 says, "by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in pnlace of two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to G-d in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.
Eph 4:4 says, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call.”
Zeb, And of that one Body, which is the Body of Christ, it is in fact the Church.
Proof:
Eph. 1:22-23 says, "and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.
Col 1:18 & 24 says, “He is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent…Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.”
Zeb, And Paul and Peter ask us to pray for one another, we can suffer for one another.
Proof:
Col 1:24 says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church.”
Zeb, Contrary to Duet 18:10-12, “calling up the dead” it is a misinterpretation of Scipture of the highest order! This is not talking about praying for another other dead or alive, this passage is talking about the Occult, to raising up the spirit of the dead in order to profit! We do not call up the dead in the first place, we ask the saints in Heaven to pray to G-d for us, just as one would with another sitting next them. Catholics do not use mediums, spiritists, &c!
Zeb, As well the Saints in Heaven are not dead, but very much ALIVE! G-d is the G-d of, not the dead, but the living!
Proof:
Mt 22:31-32 says, "And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by G-d, ‘I am the G-d of Abraham, and the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob’? He is not the G-d of the dead, but of the living.’
Zeb, As we can see Jesus with Elijah and Moses, what is Jesus doing with these “dead” people. He’s not with dead people he standing here with the Saints of Heaven who are alive!
Proof:
Mt 17:1-4 says, "And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
And Zeb, yes Catholics pray to Mary and the Saints, but your terminology is screwed up if you hold that praying is exclusively worship when it is infact and always has been partially askin or requesting their prayer and intercession, “I pray thee, brothers and sisters, pray for me!” Who said that?
Zeb, Saints in Heaven do not have such limitations that we have on Earth, they can hear us. And would not G-d be able allow them to hear us?
Proof:
Rev 21:21 says, “And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass.”
1 Cor 13:12 says, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then i shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.”
1 Cor 15:49 says, “Just as we have born the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
2 Ptr 1:4 says, "by which he has granted to use his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
1 Cor 2:9 says, “But, as it is written, 'what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what G-d has prepared for those who love him.”
Zeb, Why waste our time when we can go straight to G-d, you say? I tell you, why waste your time asking me for prayer when you can go straight to Jesus? You can go to the Saints without 1st going to Jesus the Head of the Body. We see that the prayers of the righteous are more powerful than ours!
Proof:
James 5:16 says, "Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
1 Ptr 3:12 says, “for the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those that do evil.”
Heb 12:22-23 says, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living G-d, the heavenly jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering.”
Job 42:7-10 says, “And after the Lord had spoken these words to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Themanite: My wrath is kindled against you, and against your two friends, because you have not spoken the thing that is right before me, as my servant Job has. 8 Take unto you therefore seven oxen and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust, and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you: for you have not spoken right things before me, as my servant Job has. 9 So Eliphaz the Themanite, and Baldad the Suhite, and Sophar the Naamathite went, and did as the Lord had spoken to them, and the Lord accepted the face of Job. 10 The Lord also was turned at the penance of Job, when he prayed for his friends. And the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.” Holy moly.
Ex 17:8-13 says, “And Amalec came, and fought against Israel in Raphidim. 9 And Moses said to Joshua: Choose out men; and go out and fight against Amalec: tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill, having the rod of G-d in my hand. 10 Joshua did as Moses had spoken, and he fought against Amalec; but Moses, and Aaron, and Hur, went up upon the top of the hill. 11 And when Moses lifted up his hands, Israel overcame; but if he let them down a little, Amalec overcame. 12 And Moses’ hands were heavy: so they took a stone, and put under him, and he sat on it: and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands on both sides. And it came to pass, that his hands were not weary until sunset. 13 And Joshua put Amalec and his people to flight, by the edge of the sword.”
Zeb…If there are no righteous ones on earth (Rom 3:10) and therefore, as our Seperated Brothers the Protestants argue, that Mary was not sinless (who the early Church Fathers considered a stance that was blaspheme and scandalous), who was James talking about in 5:16?
As well Zeb, in Heaven the Saints love us! So why would they not want to pray for us? As Love never ends!
Proof:
1 Cor 13:8 says, “Charity never falls away: whether prophecies shall be made void or tongues shall cease or knowledge shall be destroyed.”
Zeb, Jesus is the one Mediator in 1 Tim 2:5, I whole heartedly believe that, there is only one! As well as a Catholic I believe that Jesus is the sole mediator between G-d and man (ask me that question a hundred times and I’ll say yes every time). Jesus being the only one who is true G-d and true man; only by Jesus’ blood are we saved; but, we being members of Jesus’ body, we can share His role as mediator as He allows us to.
Zeb…Moses, Abraham, Job all show us examples of mediation and intercession between G-d and man; here on this earth, praying for one another is an example of mediating and interceding between G-d and man.
So, 1 Tim 2:5 is being misinterpreted.
Zeb, We can see this by Jesus being the one foundation and there are still other foundations!
Proof:
1 Cor 3:11 says, “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus.”
Eph 2:19-20 says, “Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners: but you are fellow citizens with the saints and the domestics of G-d, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”
Rev 21:14 says, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
Jesus, the one Lord! And, still other Lords
Proof:
Eph 4:4-5 says, “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
Rev 19:16 says, “And he has on his garment and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”
1 Ptr 3:6 says, “As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.”
As well Jesus is the one Judge and yet there are other judges!
Proof:
James 4:12 says, “There is one lawgiver and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver.”
2 Tim 4:1 says, “I charge you, before G-d and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming and his kingdom.”
1 Cor 6:2 says, “Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”
Lk 22:28-30, “And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: 29 And I dispose to you, as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom; 30 that you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
One Father, which is G-d and yet other fathers!
Proof:
Mt 23:9 says, “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.”
Acts 7:2 says, “Who said: You men, brethren and fathers, hear. The G-d of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.”
Acts 22:1 says, “Men, brethren and fathers, hear the account which I now give unto you.”
1 Cor 4:15 says, “For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.”
There is only one teacher, Jesus and yet we have other teachers!
Proof:
Mt 23:6-8, “And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Teacher. 8 But be not you called Teacher. For one is your master: and all you are brethren.”
Acts 13:1 says, “Now in the Church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers.”
1 Cor 12:28 says, “And G-d has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then works of miracles, then healers, helpers, administors, speakers in various kinds of tongues.”
For more examples of of intercessors/mediators:
Mt 18:10 says, “See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”
Rev 5:8 says, “And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.”
Rev 8:3-4 says, “And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of G-d. 4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before G-d from the hand of the angel.”
Zeb…basically there is only one Foundation, Lord, Judge, Father, Teacher, just as we only have one Mediator. Yet, scripture shows us that we have more than one judge, foundation, lord, judge, father, and teacher. Is this a contradiction? No! The head of the Body is Jesus! Jesus gives us or grants the different members in the Body of Christ the graces to share in His role as Foundation, lord, judge, father, teachers, and even…mediator.
Zeb, We do this through, with, and in Jesus Christ, to share in the grace and glory of the Head, Jesus Christ!
Zeb, We can plainly see that there are examples of many people sharing in the mediator of Christ.
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.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: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.[/quote]And you still missed the very simple point. You too Jake.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes there is, you have to twist the Word in order to make yours valid, we don’t. Big difference. [/quote]Is not. So there. Na na na na na na. Sticks tongue out =][quote]Brother Chris wrote:Why would this be necessary? It is not by the way, but please tell me why it is necessary.[/quote]Because if there are any people in visible communion with the papacy who are invisibly lost you have a visible church comprised of professors and an invisible one comprised of the truly redeemed. Just like me. Package it in whatever sooper sancified ecclesiastical leet speek you please. That is what it is. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Catholics are universalism in the sense that Jesus’ promise was for all people no depending on their skin, location, language, gender, age.[/quote]There you go again. I did not say that Rome was a universalist religion. Our friendly friar that YOU posted who was talking about how God hates sinners settled that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:You obviously don’t, you have proven that by your repeated mistakes in stating the doctrines of the Church on what they mean, how they work, and who they apply for.[/quote]Now there you go again AGAIN, but I’ll allow for a bit of that. Maybe I have made mistakes, but I’m betting a very large % of what you’re referring to is like this here where you read me as declaring universalism upon the papacy when I was doing nothing of the kind.[quote]Brother Chris wrote: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 Heaven, because we’d have to know their hearts.[/quote]Aw now this is jist chintzy. You’re better n this too Chris. I mean that. I’ll bet you a chaplet of divine mercy that the friary of our lady of Guadalupe could give us a much meatier and courageous answer than this stale twinkie your’re servin up here.
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.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]
Does anyone notice it didn’t take long for this “Christian” to start acting like one? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Dude, really? Take a valium please.
Nothing about the existence, start or end of the universe can be “proven”. We don’t know - and you know that, and that’s why you talk around the point. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove the “universe” (possibly a misnomer depending on what constitutes the “universe” and whether there are multiple and what, if anything lies beyond it) was “caused” or “uncaused”. No one. Not even your reference that you keep providing that I did read. The answer is simply unknowable right now and may never be none. Do you ever foresee a time in humanity when we can travel to the edge of the known and visible universe and “view it” or explore it? Do you ever foresee a time in humanity where we can view it, given it’s apparent expansion? No. And no. Until then, we have theories and a bunch of advanced math. Hell, we will probably never be able to view strings, if they in fact exist - strings being the result of advanced math.
So, “fuck off”? Is that what Jesus would say? You Christians are certainly an interesting bunch. Then again, you believe you’re “forgiven”, but will I forgive you?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: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.[/quote]And you still missed the very simple point. You too Jake.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes there is, you have to twist the Word in order to make yours valid, we don’t. Big difference. [/quote]Is not. So there. Na na na na na na. Sticks tongue out =][quote]Brother Chris wrote:Why would this be necessary? It is not by the way, but please tell me why it is necessary.[/quote]Because if there are any people in visible communion with the papacy who are invisibly lost you have a visible church comprised of professors and an invisible one comprised of the truly redeemed. Just like me. Package it in whatever sooper sancified ecclesiastical leet speek you please. That is what it is. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Catholics are universalism in the sense that Jesus’ promise was for all people no depending on their skin, location, language, gender, age.[/quote]There you go again. I did not say that Rome was a universalist religion. Our friendly friar that YOU posted who was talking about how God hates sinners settled that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:You obviously don’t, you have proven that by your repeated mistakes in stating the doctrines of the Church on what they mean, how they work, and who they apply for.[/quote]Now there you go again AGAIN, but I’ll allow for a bit of that. Maybe I have made mistakes, but I’m betting a very large % of what you’re referring to is like this here where you read me as declaring universalism upon the papacy when I was doing nothing of the kind.[quote]Brother Chris wrote: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 Heaven, because we’d have to know their hearts.[/quote]Aw now this is jist chintzy. You’re better n this too Chris. I mean that. I’ll bet you a chaplet of divine mercy that the friary of our lady of Guadalupe could give us a much meatier and courageous answer than this stale twinkie your’re servin up here.
[/quote]
I didn’t miss your point. I actually understood it before you even said it. And what do you say to what I replied to it? Israel was Israel and the Church is the Church.
What’s with the G-d. Why can’t you spell it? Sorry I really don’t get that. Is it another funny little Catholic thingy?
[/quote]
No, it’s a funny Jewish thing. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy G-d in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Comes after Thou shalt worship the Lord thy G-d and Him only shalt thou serve. And, before Thou shalt keep the sabbath holy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: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.[/quote]And you still missed the very simple point. You too Jake.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes there is, you have to twist the Word in order to make yours valid, we don’t. Big difference. [/quote]Is not. So there. Na na na na na na. Sticks tongue out =][quote]Brother Chris wrote:Why would this be necessary? It is not by the way, but please tell me why it is necessary.[/quote]Because if there are any people in visible communion with the papacy who are invisibly lost you have a visible church comprised of professors and an invisible one comprised of the truly redeemed. Just like me. Package it in whatever sooper sancified ecclesiastical leet speek you please. That is what it is. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:Catholics are universalism in the sense that Jesus’ promise was for all people no depending on their skin, location, language, gender, age.[/quote]There you go again. I did not say that Rome was a universalist religion. Our friendly friar that YOU posted who was talking about how God hates sinners settled that.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:You obviously don’t, you have proven that by your repeated mistakes in stating the doctrines of the Church on what they mean, how they work, and who they apply for.[/quote]Now there you go again AGAIN, but I’ll allow for a bit of that. Maybe I have made mistakes, but I’m betting a very large % of what you’re referring to is like this here where you read me as declaring universalism upon the papacy when I was doing nothing of the kind.[quote]Brother Chris wrote: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 Heaven, because we’d have to know their hearts.[/quote]Aw now this is jist chintzy. You’re better n this too Chris. I mean that. I’ll bet you a chaplet of divine mercy that the friary of our lady of Guadalupe could give us a much meatier and courageous answer than this stale twinkie your’re servin up here.
[/quote]
Invisibly lost? That doesn’t even make sense, now we have invisible people? I’m getting a Matrix vibe, you sure your pastor ain’t Cornell West? I know you said he was a Pagan…but you know. No, if they have sinned, they are out of the Body of Christ.
So they cannot be visibly in communion with the Church and be “invisibly lost.” That would be a contradiction, that is like saying you can be in the Body of Christ and sinning at the same time. No, we do not have a invisible Church. No, you try to water down our doctrines to make it seem like you invisible Church, when it is very much not. Someone maybe a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean they are visibly in communion with the Church. You have to be a faithful Catholic in grace “entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments, and in the Churchâ??s hierarchical order” - basically…accept Catholic doctrine, receive the sacraments (which includes the sacrament of penance), and being subject to its governance…or being a faithful Catholic.
I didn’t say that the Catholic Church was a universalistic religion, I said it held universalism doctrine that Jesus’ promise was for all people…that includes people of other religions. That doesn’t mean their religion is right. However, still doesn’t mean an invisible Church.
But there is universalism, our religion is for everyone. It does not reject, we are the slaves of all men, because Jesus died for all people.
Fine, contact the friar and ask if he’d declare anyone in Hell. If you win, I’ll pray a Chaplet for a week for your intentions and if I win you pray the whole Rosary (150 Hail Mary’s and 15 Our Fathers) for the intention of being more charitable.
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.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]
Does anyone notice it didn’t take long for this “Christian” to start acting like one? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Dude, really? Take a valium please.
Nothing about the existence, start or end of the universe can be “proven”. We don’t know - and you know that, and that’s why you talk around the point. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove the “universe” (possibly a misnomer depending on what constitutes the “universe” and whether there are multiple and what, if anything lies beyond it) was “caused” or “uncaused”. No one. Not even your reference that you keep providing that I did read. The answer is simply unknowable right now and may never be none. Do you ever foresee a time in humanity when we can travel to the edge of the known and visible universe and “view it” or explore it? Do you ever foresee a time in humanity where we can view it, given it’s apparent expansion? No. And no. Until then, we have theories and a bunch of advanced math. Hell, we will probably never be able to view strings, if they in fact exist - strings being the result of advanced math.
So, “fuck off”? Is that what Jesus would say? You Christians are certainly an interesting bunch. Then again, you believe you’re “forgiven”, but will I forgive you?[/quote]
Why such the sense of morality?
And, Pat being a Catholic is only forgiven when he confesses and repents of his sins.
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.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]
Does anyone notice it didn’t take long for this “Christian” to start acting like one? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Dude, really? Take a valium please.
Nothing about the existence, start or end of the universe can be “proven”. We don’t know - and you know that, and that’s why you talk around the point. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove the “universe” (possibly a misnomer depending on what constitutes the “universe” and whether there are multiple and what, if anything lies beyond it) was “caused” or “uncaused”. No one. Not even your reference that you keep providing that I did read. The answer is simply unknowable right now and may never be none. Do you ever foresee a time in humanity when we can travel to the edge of the known and visible universe and “view it” or explore it? Do you ever foresee a time in humanity where we can view it, given it’s apparent expansion? No. And no. Until then, we have theories and a bunch of advanced math. Hell, we will probably never be able to view strings, if they in fact exist - strings being the result of advanced math.
So, “fuck off”? Is that what Jesus would say? You Christians are certainly an interesting bunch. Then again, you believe you’re “forgiven”, but will I forgive you?[/quote]
Why such the sense of morality?
And, Pat being a Catholic is only forgiven when he confesses and repents of his sins.[/quote]
Not a sense of morality as you call it, but rather a sense of irony. Rich irony.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< I didn’t miss your point. I actually understood it before you even said it. And what do you say to what I replied to it? Israel was Israel and the Church is the Church.[/quote]The church IS the Israel of God and the Israel of God IS the church. Always has been from all eternity and since the 12th of Genesis in time. When I get a chance I’ll check, but I’m betting the Septuagint even renders what can only be Israel by the word ekklesia which is translated church all over the NT. I can’t believe I never thought of that before. The learning goes on. Thank you Lord.
That’s a great illustration actually. There was the visible nation, of whom multitudes were regularly exterminated for a couple thousand years and the invisible remnant who actually knew the LORD. Those who had not bowed the knee to baal who’s number and members were visible only to God. Let me clarify something here. When we say “invisible”? We do not mean invisible people for Pete’s sake. We mean indiscernible to us. We don’t know who the actually elect or not are. That true mystical body is visible to God alone. All we can see is who makes the claim by their participation in the VISIBLE church which we CAN see.
I’ll get to you Chris. I have to go to work. It should be definitely instructive to the readers how foundationally irreconcilable are the minds of a true reformation protestant and informed Catholics. If that is brought out, I believe I will have ultimately glorified God in having participated in these discussions. Never the twain shall meet. Rome is the borg cube of Christendom. Open arms and brotherly kissy talk mean spiritual absorption and I will have none of it. Of course Chris will respond about how whether I’ll have it or not… it is, but that’s tough. Well actually he’ll say that all those like me can’t be absorbed because to be in Christ IS to be so by the grace of God dispensed through the papacy by definition, but that’s tough too.
What’s with the G-d. Why can’t you spell it? Sorry I really don’t get that. Is it another funny little Catholic thingy?
[/quote]
No, it’s a funny Jewish thing. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy G-d in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Comes after Thou shalt worship the Lord thy G-d and Him only shalt thou serve. And, before Thou shalt keep the sabbath holy.[/quote]
How is discussing God taking his name in vain? And if it is taking it in vain how is putting a dash in place of the “o” not taking it in vain. You think he doesn’t know that you’ve replaced the “o” with a dash?
What’s with the G-d. Why can’t you spell it? Sorry I really don’t get that. Is it another funny little Catholic thingy?
[/quote]
No, it’s a funny Jewish thing. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy G-d in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Comes after Thou shalt worship the Lord thy G-d and Him only shalt thou serve. And, before Thou shalt keep the sabbath holy.[/quote]
How is discussing God taking his name in vain? And if it is taking it in vain how is putting a dash in place of the “o” not taking it in vain. You think he doesn’t know that you’ve replaced the “o” with a dash?
Just more stuff huh?
[/quote]
“Stuff”. Nice way to put it. As if the omnipotent creator of the entire known and unknown universe has an objection to having his name (in fact, our name for him, not even “his” name) written. Yeah. That’s it. Couldn’t be man’s idea.
[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]
Elementary particles aren’t divisible, since by definition they cannot be reduced further.
Asking where they come from implicitly assumes they had a beginning. The question doesn’t apply for elementary particles that have always existed. If something has always existed, it had no beginning and can be traced to no cause.
Elementary particles have a nature (charge, etc.) that guides what they do. If elementary particles have always existed, their nature has always existed. Asking why implies a supernatural purpose, when their behavior is definitionally natural. Gravity simply is. Electromagnetism simply is. They are descriptions of how matter and energy behave under various conditions.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural creator, since elementary particles are entirely natural.
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.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]
Does anyone notice it didn’t take long for this “Christian” to start acting like one? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Dude, really? Take a valium please.
Nothing about the existence, start or end of the universe can be “proven”. We don’t know - and you know that, and that’s why you talk around the point. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove the “universe” (possibly a misnomer depending on what constitutes the “universe” and whether there are multiple and what, if anything lies beyond it) was “caused” or “uncaused”. No one. Not even your reference that you keep providing that I did read. The answer is simply unknowable right now and may never be none. Do you ever foresee a time in humanity when we can travel to the edge of the known and visible universe and “view it” or explore it? Do you ever foresee a time in humanity where we can view it, given it’s apparent expansion? No. And no. Until then, we have theories and a bunch of advanced math. Hell, we will probably never be able to view strings, if they in fact exist - strings being the result of advanced math.
So, “fuck off”? Is that what Jesus would say? You Christians are certainly an interesting bunch. Then again, you believe you’re “forgiven”, but will I forgive you?[/quote]
If you expect me to sit here and take badgering by you just because I am a Christian you can forget it. You question my qualifications on talking about this stuff on a body building web site? Really? I do have a resume, but I am not sending it to you.
Deductive arguments are known closed systems, you do not need to know everything about everything for something to be absolutely true.
Inferred or inductive arguments are the ‘best guesses’ where you do have to know everything about it for it to be an absolute truth <-that’s science.
Cosmology is a closed form, it has all the premises and a conclusion that follows that it needs to be a truth. The only thing you can do is disprove the premises, or the conclusion the argument structure is solid. You can work it over until you puke and you cannot break it.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of me, or whether or not I am a Christian or not. You aren’t going to tell me what to do and what I can and cannot discuss. Who the fuck are you to do such a thing? What are your qualifications that allow you to come a boss people around? It’s clear you came here to badger me. So yes, you can fuck off if you don’t like it.
Further, I don’t rightly give a shit if you do or don’t ‘forgive’ me. I may be a Christian, but I am not a doormat.
[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]
Elementary particles aren’t divisible, since by definition they cannot be reduced further.
Asking where they come from implicitly assumes they had a beginning. The question doesn’t apply for elementary particles that have always existed. If something has always existed, it had no beginning and can be traced to no cause.
Elementary particles have a nature (charge, etc.) that guides what they do. If elementary particles have always existed, their nature has always existed. Asking why implies a supernatural purpose, when their behavior is definitionally natural. Gravity simply is. Electromagnetism simply is. They are descriptions of how matter and energy behave under various conditions.
There’s no need to invoke a supernatural creator, since elementary particles are entirely natural.[/quote]
Is what? What is gravity, far as I know, nobody actually knows. Staking the claim on creation gravity and particles is based on what exactly.? They are governed and behave a certain way because of their nature. Secondly they can actually be reduced further, perhaps not materially, but each come with a unique set of properties, their own charge, there own ‘weight’ (not to be confused with mass), their interaction with other particles, and perhaps even those elusive ‘strings’. So you can break it down even if you can’t split them any further. Which is actually not conclusively know either.
It could all just be energy which comes from what? If it just is than how is it, ‘just is’, what closes the system? Energy also, has components and is governed by ‘rules’ or ‘laws’.
I think you are still stuck on time which at this level, there really isn’t any.
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.[/quote]
You’re job is easy, prove it wasn’t caused. I have laid down my arguments plenty in many different forms. Everything that exists exists for a reason unless you posit that what exists was uncaused, aka. random, or in other words something from nothing.
Stop it? Fuck off, you have no right to tell me what to do. I will do what I want,say what I want and will not rely on the fear of appealing to authority ← which in it self is a logical fallacy.
If you don’t like what I say, then prove it wrong or fuck off, period.
I’ll even make it easy here is a link read, weap…It’s full of points and counter points.
Shall I send for the Nobel folks for I found the one guy who can disprove the cosmological form? All I have seen you do is tell me I don’t have the smarts or the right to question anybody. That’s your problem not mine.
So genius, PROVE ME WRONG.[/quote]
Does anyone notice it didn’t take long for this “Christian” to start acting like one? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Dude, really? Take a valium please.
Nothing about the existence, start or end of the universe can be “proven”. We don’t know - and you know that, and that’s why you talk around the point. Neither I, nor anyone else, can prove the “universe” (possibly a misnomer depending on what constitutes the “universe” and whether there are multiple and what, if anything lies beyond it) was “caused” or “uncaused”. No one. Not even your reference that you keep providing that I did read. The answer is simply unknowable right now and may never be none. Do you ever foresee a time in humanity when we can travel to the edge of the known and visible universe and “view it” or explore it? Do you ever foresee a time in humanity where we can view it, given it’s apparent expansion? No. And no. Until then, we have theories and a bunch of advanced math. Hell, we will probably never be able to view strings, if they in fact exist - strings being the result of advanced math.
So, “fuck off”? Is that what Jesus would say? You Christians are certainly an interesting bunch. Then again, you believe you’re “forgiven”, but will I forgive you?[/quote]
Why such the sense of morality?
And, Pat being a Catholic is only forgiven when he confesses and repents of his sins.[/quote]
I have plenty of sins, but defending myself isn’t one of them.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
When we say “invisible”? We do not mean invisible people for Pete’s sake. We mean indiscernible to us. We don’t know who the actually elect or not are. That true mystical body is visible to God alone. All we can see is who makes the claim by their participation in the VISIBLE church which we CAN see.
[/quote]
That maybe what you mean, but you’re wrong. There is one Church, Jesus built one Church. And it is visible. Wonder why Protestants (excluding orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics) believe that there is an invisible Church. Scape goat, they don’t want to be subject to G-d’s full kingdom, just part of it, which they wish to be subject to. The Father runs a kingdom, not a democracy.