[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why do you call them former Catholics, >>>[/quote]Because they will then know how they got there. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:perhaps you are wrong and perhaps the Holy Ghost has stayed with the Bride, and perhaps Jesus did mean that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the divine part of the Church, which is the teaching which is the truth. >>>[/quote]I don’t think I know what this means. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Presumption of salvation without merit is a capital sin against the Holy Ghost.[/quote]This a redundancy. A person presuming they are saved, without merit (when they’re not) aren’t saved. The presumption has only deluded them into denying what was always the case.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why do you call them former Catholics, >>>[/quote]Because they will then know how they got there. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:perhaps you are wrong and perhaps the Holy Ghost has stayed with the Bride, and perhaps Jesus did mean that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the divine part of the Church, which is the teaching which is the truth. >>>[/quote]I don’t think I know what this means. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Presumption of salvation without merit is a capital sin against the Holy Ghost.[/quote]This a redundancy. A person presuming they are saved, without merit (when they’re not) aren’t saved. The presumption has only deluded them into denying what was always the case.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.[/quote]
Yes, and “Christians” have had mass sex orgies now. Glad we figured that out. So, they are sinners great. I am not saying that mass sex orgies are good, they are a sin against G-d and humanity. I am saying they search for truth was noble. Just like Protestants reverence for the Bible, reverence for a relationship with Christ is noble, their doctrines are not always noble and their disobedience to the full truth is not. Muslim’s submission to G-d is noble, their denying of the full truth of Jesus is not. Buddhist can be admired for their awareness of themselves and their neighbor is admirable, their atheism cannot be.
We can admire the noble parts and cast away the weeds. Cut off the branch that does not grow good fruit, so the rest of the tree can grow more.
Did you really just say St. Thomas Aquinas sold his soul? You think the man that experienced ecstasy celebrating the Lord’s Mass sold his soul? You think the man that wrote more about mysticism in which to experience G-d more fully sold his soul? What is wrong with you, you obviously lack knowledge of not only Catholicism, you lack knowledge of the saints.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.
Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.
I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth. [/quote]
Incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you read the link. It’s all addressed.
So, prove causation is not required. If you know I am wrong, then you should know this answer. If you are simply going to say we don’t know the universe, just don’t bother because it misses the point.[/quote]
I don’t have to read your assignment. I’m familiar with the arguments. YOU are not addressing or understanding MY point. The arguments contained on your page are STILL trapped in our perception of and experience with the universe.
So, prove causation is required. Go ahead, I’ll wait.[/quote]
So explaining to you that perception and experience is irrelevant simply doesn’t sink in? IT is irrelevant. It’s a deductive argument. Do you have any comprehension what the hell that means at all? Damn man, perception is absolutely irrelevant. If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.
Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.
If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.
Whether you are alive or not, perception is does not matter as it pertains to causal relationships.
Not being able to see into other dimensions does not dismantle deductive truths. Deductive truths are what they are, period. There is nothing that can debunk it, if there is, it’s not true.
The principle of sufficient reason states that simply, no matter what it is, there is a sufficient reason for it’s existence.
or rather put:
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.
or:
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming
If a new state of one or several real objects appears, another state must have preceded it upon which the new state follows regularly.
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing
If a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground. By virtue of this quality, it receives the predicate true. Truth is therefore the reference of a judgment to something different therefrom.
Now this I cut and pasted from here:
Now with out saying you don’t know, prove it wrong.
Don’t say that ‘I’ don’t know, speak for yourself.
Quit telling me what I can and cannot know or think, because you don’t know what I know. If anybody has been condescending it’s been you somehow entering my brain and knowing what I know and don’t know? What I know, you don’t know is what I know. [/quote]
This is really exhausting. Your attempting to make your point with a hammer while not comprehending my point is senseless. You clearly do not get it. No matter how many times you jump up and down and yell, and post references.
You say “If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.”
Your very perception of existence leads you to these conclusions. Can you perceive 11 dimensions? No. If there are in fact 11 dimensions, what makes you think you can make an argument - and any argument you make needs to be constructed from a human perspective and experience with his universe - for the origins of the universe, if there were any origins at all? So say it 20 times, it doesn’t make your point more valid.
You say “Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.”
The only evidence for causation is our experience and perception of the universe in time. As we cannot perceive and experience 11 dimensions, causation may not even exist as it concerns the origins of the universe. You perceive causation. The universe at our perception is decidedly an illusion. The very concept of causation may very well be an illusion.
You say “If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.”
Just about all the above is incorrect. Your perception of causation occurs in time. Causation as you understand and experience starts to break down at the quantum level. Perception IS the issue - because you perceive it actually exists and explains everything - and it does not. Period.
“Deductive truths”. Are you fucking kidding me? According to QM and string theory, the universe acts in ways we cannot possibly perceive. If you do not have all the information, or the correct information, how the fuck can you make make a deductive truth LOL? For a deductive argument to be sound, the premise has to be true. Well guess what? Your premise may very well be an illusion. Causation may very well be an illusion of Newtownian Physics - the world we perceive and see.
You’re quite impressed with yourself and quite impressed with giving fancy labels to your arguments and then parading them around here like they are irrefutable truths. Just because you can perceive causation as you experience it when I kick you square in your ass, does not mean those laws and physics apply to the hidden universe. The universe does not have to have a “why” - YOU want it to have a why b/c everything else in your perceived existence has a “why” and a beginning and an end.
These are not novel arguments and at the end of the day, you have an opinion - not fact. Stop jumping up and down screaming like you have a fact.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]
Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…[/quote]
Oh, that was not very satisfying. What with all the references you posted and the blustering about causes and cosmology.
What preceded the big bang? What caused it?[/quote]
Exactly.
[/quote]
Clever answer. So “cause” caused it. LOL. Why don’t you answer the question?[/quote]
I don’t know what preceded the big bang. Could have been a ‘primordial soup’ of dark matter. It could have been 100,000,000 accordion universes preceding this one, or it could have been the first caused event. [/quote]
So everything was just caused by an unbroken chain of causes going back to infinity?
From my limited reading of the EPR paradox, far from being conclusive proof that contingency exists outside of time, the jury is still out. Wthin the Copenhagen interpretation, some believe there is no causal instantaneous effect. That is, it may be a problem with measurement and not with the system itself.
Furthermore, it doesn’t apply to our discussion because the measurement itself is time-bound. The effect can’t occur until the measurement occurs, which is different from arguing that two entities are mutually contingent when completely outside of time. It’s cool stuff, but we are still far from being able to draw any definite conclusions about contingency and causality.
I was actually talking about the non contingency of the chain itself. In other words, what if the links of the chain are contingent on each other, but the chain is infinite and non contingent? It’s very possible that the chain is non contingent, despite being comprised of contingent components.
No, the causality premise of the cosmological argument is inductive rather than deductive. From Wiki:
Therefore, we can’t conclude that causality is universal, just because we observe causality in our corner of the universe.
As I said, I’m not arguing the cosmological argument must be false, only that there isn’t anywhere near sufficient evidence to claim that it is likely to be true.[/quote]
Pat, not sure if you saw my post since you’ve argued a couple times since then that your conclusions on causality are deductive. According to Hume, they are actually inductive, which makes sense when you think about it. Deduction requires knowledge of the entire universe, and at best we can only induce based on observations in our little corner of the universe.
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.[/quote]
Incorrect. Hume postulated a 3rd element of causation. He presumed that because things don’t turn out as you reliably think they should, that between a cause and an effect, there was third element whose job it was to gum up the works so to speak. It was an interesting exercise, but it was one Hume failed at. Don’t get me wrong, I love Hume, but he bombed this one. He never was able to prove in any way, shape or form, that there was this elusive ‘3rd element’. Humian philosophy is best regarded under empiricism.
He took science philosophies to a new level. His attempt to disprove causation failed though. Actually he didn’t try to disprove it, he was trying to say we didn’t understand it. Which is true to a point. We know that causes must necessitate their effects, but we don’t necessarily know which cause necessitated which effect.
If a billiard ball strikes another, one could say the strike moved the ball, but it could have been like magnetic charges pushing against one another.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]
Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…[/quote]
Oh, that was not very satisfying. What with all the references you posted and the blustering about causes and cosmology.
What preceded the big bang? What caused it?[/quote]
Exactly.
[/quote]
Clever answer. So “cause” caused it. LOL. Why don’t you answer the question?[/quote]
I don’t know what preceded the big bang. Could have been a ‘primordial soup’ of dark matter. It could have been 100,000,000 accordion universes preceding this one, or it could have been the first caused event. [/quote]
So everything was just caused by an unbroken chain of causes going back to infinity?[/quote]
No.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Did you really just say St. Thomas Aquinas sold his soul? >>>[/quote]He sacrificed his intellect on, by Paul’s declaration, the foolish pagan altar of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Parmenides and Heraclitus. He subjected, literally, the gospel of god to the insolent intellect of sinful men. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:You think the man that experienced ecstasy celebrating the Lord’s Mass sold his soul? >>>[/quote]The Lord doesn’t have a mass, but I’ll leave whatever Aquinas experienced to Him. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:You think the man that wrote more about mysticism in which to experience G-d more fully sold his soul? >>>[/quote]Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada wrote quite a bit about mysticism and experiencing God too. Geez, so did Calvin… and Van Til.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:What is wrong with you, you obviously lack knowledge of not only Catholicism, you lack knowledge of the saints.[/quote]I know more about Catholicism than 97% of the Catholics I’ve ever met. I don’t know how much that’s saying, but I figure if I can read that much and have you telling me how little I understand then we have long since abandoned the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3) I am only being honest. Would you like me not to be?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.
Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.
I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth. [/quote]
Incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you read the link. It’s all addressed.
So, prove causation is not required. If you know I am wrong, then you should know this answer. If you are simply going to say we don’t know the universe, just don’t bother because it misses the point.[/quote]
I don’t have to read your assignment. I’m familiar with the arguments. YOU are not addressing or understanding MY point. The arguments contained on your page are STILL trapped in our perception of and experience with the universe.
So, prove causation is required. Go ahead, I’ll wait.[/quote]
So explaining to you that perception and experience is irrelevant simply doesn’t sink in? IT is irrelevant. It’s a deductive argument. Do you have any comprehension what the hell that means at all? Damn man, perception is absolutely irrelevant. If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.
Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.
If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.
Whether you are alive or not, perception is does not matter as it pertains to causal relationships.
Not being able to see into other dimensions does not dismantle deductive truths. Deductive truths are what they are, period. There is nothing that can debunk it, if there is, it’s not true.
The principle of sufficient reason states that simply, no matter what it is, there is a sufficient reason for it’s existence.
or rather put:
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.
or:
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming
If a new state of one or several real objects appears, another state must have preceded it upon which the new state follows regularly.
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing
If a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground. By virtue of this quality, it receives the predicate true. Truth is therefore the reference of a judgment to something different therefrom.
Now this I cut and pasted from here:
Now with out saying you don’t know, prove it wrong.
Don’t say that ‘I’ don’t know, speak for yourself.
Quit telling me what I can and cannot know or think, because you don’t know what I know. If anybody has been condescending it’s been you somehow entering my brain and knowing what I know and don’t know? What I know, you don’t know is what I know. [/quote]
This is really exhausting. Your attempting to make your point with a hammer while not comprehending my point is senseless. You clearly do not get it. No matter how many times you jump up and down and yell, and post references.
You say “If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.”
Your very perception of existence leads you to these conclusions. Can you perceive 11 dimensions? No. If there are in fact 11 dimensions, what makes you think you can make an argument - and any argument you make needs to be constructed from a human perspective and experience with his universe - for the origins of the universe, if there were any origins at all? So say it 20 times, it doesn’t make your point more valid.
You say “Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.”
The only evidence for causation is our experience and perception of the universe in time. As we cannot perceive and experience 11 dimensions, causation may not even exist as it concerns the origins of the universe. You perceive causation. The universe at our perception is decidedly an illusion. The very concept of causation may very well be an illusion.
You say “If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.”
Just about all the above is incorrect. Your perception of causation occurs in time. Causation as you understand and experience starts to break down at the quantum level. Perception IS the issue - because you perceive it actually exists and explains everything - and it does not. Period.
“Deductive truths”. Are you fucking kidding me? According to QM and string theory, the universe acts in ways we cannot possibly perceive. If you do not have all the information, or the correct information, how the fuck can you make make a deductive truth LOL? For a deductive argument to be sound, the premise has to be true. Well guess what? Your premise may very well be an illusion. Causation may very well be an illusion of Newtownian Physics - the world we perceive and see.
You’re quite impressed with yourself and quite impressed with giving fancy labels to your arguments and then parading them around here like they are irrefutable truths. Just because you can perceive causation as you experience it when I kick you square in your ass, does not mean those laws and physics apply to the hidden universe. The universe does not have to have a “why” - YOU want it to have a why b/c everything else in your perceived existence has a “why” and a beginning and an end.
These are not novel arguments and at the end of the day, you have an opinion - not fact. Stop jumping up and down screaming like you have a fact. [/quote]
You really cannot comprehend this stuff can you? Perception is irrelevant. This is a deductive argument. I didn’t invent it and it’s not “my” opinion it’s an opinion that I share.
This is not inferred and it is not limited to perception. It is the case until proven otherwise. Your inability to get it is does not invalidate it.
Do you have any ability to prove this wrong or are you going to continue wasting my time repeating the same stupidity over and over that “I don’t know and it’s my perception”.
Time is not relevant, perception is irrelevant to the argument, my history and mental limitations are irrelevant. Effects are necessitated by their causes, this cannot happened infinitely because an infinite regress necessarily begs the question. This happens in, or out of time, it happens in or out of perception. It is the way it is. You have to prove it wrong, not call me an idiot.
Either causation is a fact or it’s not. Prove it’s not if you don’t believe it. Don’t presume to tell me what I am applying to it. It is a purely logical argument. Which you cannot obviously prove wrong, so really, why do you bother? Telling me how stupid I am doesn’t invalidate causation. If I died tomorrow, you’d still be wrong.
The one page link, would have saved you from these foolish presumptions.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why do you call them former Catholics, >>>[/quote]Because they will then know how they got there. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:perhaps you are wrong and perhaps the Holy Ghost has stayed with the Bride, and perhaps Jesus did mean that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the divine part of the Church, which is the teaching which is the truth. >>>[/quote]I don’t think I know what this means. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Presumption of salvation without merit is a capital sin against the Holy Ghost.[/quote]This a redundancy. A person presuming they are saved, without merit (when they’re not) aren’t saved. The presumption has only deluded them into denying what was always the case.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.[/quote]
Yes, and “Christians” have had mass sex orgies now. Glad we figured that out. So, they are sinners great. I am not saying that mass sex orgies are good, they are a sin against G-d and humanity. I am saying they search for truth was noble. Just like Protestants reverence for the Bible, reverence for a relationship with Christ is noble, their doctrines are not always noble and their disobedience to the full truth is not. Muslim’s submission to G-d is noble, their denying of the full truth of Jesus is not. Buddhist can be admired for their awareness of themselves and their neighbor is admirable, their atheism cannot be.
We can admire the noble parts and cast away the weeds. Cut off the branch that does not grow good fruit, so the rest of the tree can grow more.
Did you really just say St. Thomas Aquinas sold his soul? You think the man that experienced ecstasy celebrating the Lord’s Mass sold his soul? You think the man that wrote more about mysticism in which to experience G-d more fully sold his soul? What is wrong with you, you obviously lack knowledge of not only Catholicism, you lack knowledge of the saints.[/quote]
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.[/quote]
Yeah you can. All you got to do is look. If God only was evidenced in a book, I would be as agnostic as yourself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why do you call them former Catholics, >>>[/quote]Because they will then know how they got there. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:perhaps you are wrong and perhaps the Holy Ghost has stayed with the Bride, and perhaps Jesus did mean that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the divine part of the Church, which is the teaching which is the truth. >>>[/quote]I don’t think I know what this means. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Presumption of salvation without merit is a capital sin against the Holy Ghost.[/quote]This a redundancy. A person presuming they are saved, without merit (when they’re not) aren’t saved. The presumption has only deluded them into denying what was always the case.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.[/quote]
And Ham molested Noah, David had like 700 concubines, Jacob banged one of his sons wives, etc. Paul’s message wasn’t how foolish the Greeks were, it was an attempt to bring them the word for they had not the law.
Why is Aristotle’s 4th book of metaphysics an abomination in the sight of God? First, that’s not scriptural. So what about it was an abomination?
St. Thomas Aquinas sold his soul to Aristotle? No, he took the temporal problem out of the cosmological argument. Don’t suppose yourself to be holier than St. Thomas Aquinas.
Prove that Aristotle’s metaphysics are an abomination to God…
Secondly, if truth disagrees with your faith, guess which is wrong? Since God is truth, you must be akin to truth first and foremost. What you believe must be true and what is true is never abominable to God lest he be at odds with himself.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< If God only was evidenced in a book, >>>[/quote]Look Chris. LOOK! What, pray tell, is the secret of communicating with this man?
[/quote]
It’s no mystery. Be direct, be honest, don’t presume, and don’t attempt to lead. I am easy.
If God, only exists in a book, then it is a fairy tale.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Did you really just say St. Thomas Aquinas sold his soul? >>>[/quote]He sacrificed his intellect on, by Paul’s declaration, the foolish pagan altar of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Parmenides and Heraclitus. He subjected, literally, the gospel of god to the insolent intellect of sinful men. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:You think the man that experienced ecstasy celebrating the Lord’s Mass sold his soul? >>>[/quote]The Lord doesn’t have a mass, but I’ll leave whatever Aquinas experienced to Him. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:You think the man that wrote more about mysticism in which to experience G-d more fully sold his soul? >>>[/quote]Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada wrote quite a bit about mysticism and experiencing God too. Geez, so did Calvin… and Van Til.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:What is wrong with you, you obviously lack knowledge of not only Catholicism, you lack knowledge of the saints.[/quote]I know more about Catholicism than 97% of the Catholics I’ve ever met. I don’t know how much that’s saying, but I figure if I can read that much and have you telling me how little I understand then we have long since abandoned the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3) I am only being honest. Would you like me not to be?
[/quote]
So, the Lord doesn’t have a Mass? Then what is it that I go to everyday to celebrate and participate in the Lord’s sacrifice?
How did Aquinas sacrifice his intellect? How are their intellects insolent?
Yes, but were they known as mystics themselves and does anyone use their stuff? Does it work?
I’m sure. As well, I can teach any little kid to know more than 97% of theologians. That doesn’t prove anything about actually knowning the Catholicism or St. Thomas Aquinas.
So, I call you out on your attack on the Church and one of her Saints and you want to accuse me of not having devotion and knowing Jesus personally?
P.S. This has nothing to do with this post, but I have a suggestion. Maybe the reason why you think people do not understand you is because of how you write. You have a gift which I call too smart for school (I have that, too but am working on it). Where you write in such a way and with such words that no one really understands what you’re saying, like a lawyer in a brief. I will try it myself, I have been talking to Fr. John Corapi and he has given me a few lessons in not being ambigious.
P.P.S About 2 Corinthians 11, Paul is talking to the Corinthians because of their believing false apostles over him, so he is forced to give a commendation of himself, of his equality with the chief apostle Peter (5), of his ability to preach the gospel freely (7), Paul shows that he is not inferior to the deceitful workers in legal prerogative (13), and in the service of Christ, through the sufferings for his ministry, is far superior to them. So, what you’re saying is that our theology on Christ is wrong? You yourself said that you like the Catholic theology of G-d, now we’re hold as the truth a false christ? Which is it?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< If God only was evidenced in a book, >>>[/quote]Look Chris. LOOK! What, pray tell, is the secret of communicating with this man?
[/quote]
You lost me after look. And, what do you find wrong with what pat said here?
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Why is Aristotle’s 4th book of metaphysics an abomination in the sight of God? First, that’s not scriptural. So what about it was an abomination? >>>[/quote]Aristotle began with himself and then proceeded in attempting to demonstrate impersonal, hypothetical, amoral, logical abstractions as being ultimately responsible for the existence of man and everything else as well. That is idolatry according to Romans 1. However, it IS the logical conclusion of autonomous man. Self inflicted autonomy is the natural state of fallen man. Adam made that first autonomous decision, (I like my way better he said) and ever since it has been the intellectual component of the curse of death in sin. Man at that moment of spiritual death was given over to the futility of his own mind (Ephesians 4:17) hence every conversation I’ve witnessed since I’ve been here.
See Pat the problem we have is you keep demanding proof, by which you mean in accordance with the 4th book of Aristotle’s metaphysics, whether you realize it or not. You are saying prove to ME on MY self evident autonomous terms whatever it is you’re demanding proof for at that moment. Just like Aristotle and Aquinas did, but like Paul did not. Aristotle presumed to stand as judge over God and His creation by seeking Him on his own terms instead of God’s. The point isn’t whether the alleged law of non contradiction is true or not. The point is that it has no authentic power in the subjective vacuum of the mind of autonomous man. The law of non contradiction IS true if it is itself first intentionally subordinated to the mind of the God who is it’s author.
It’s also not a question of whether there will be contradiction in our understanding of reality. There will. Right in the face of the exalted law of non contradiction we have contradiction everywhere. Autonomous fallen man finds what appears to be contradiction in divine revelation and manipulates that revelation into line with his fallen understanding of the law of non contradiction. In other words, God cannot reveal what appears contradictory to ME. The truly Christian position says “Lord, reveal what you will and if there seems to be contradiction the problem must be on my end”.
The bottom line is that without comprehensive knowledge of EVERYTHING there can be no actual knowledge of ANYTHING because something we don’t know constantly threatens to introduce some component that is fatally destructive to all the rest. The eternal almighty triune God of the bible alone has that comprehensive knowledge and only self conscious recognition of His rightful place on the throne of one’s mind can bring true resolution to the law of non contradiction. The heart of faith embraces the fact that whatever appears contradictory to him is resolved in the unsearchable mind of the God to whom he has entrusted his very life.
Prove to me that a God who says Himself that He cannot change has become flesh and dwelt among us. Prove to me that Jesus of Nazareth was the second person of the Godhead. Prove to me that there is a Godhead at all consisting of The Father, His eternally begotten Son and the Holy Ghost proceeding from both. Neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. Prove to me any of a hundred incomprehensible divine truths using Aristotelean deduction. Do you believe that the God who in the beginning said “let there be light” and there was is happy with being represented as some impersonal abstract uncaused first cause? I do not believe that.
Romans 1:18-25 ESV[quote]18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19-For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20-For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21-For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22-Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24-Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:<<< If God only was evidenced in a book, >>>[/quote]Look Chris. LOOK! What, pray tell, is the secret of communicating with this man?
[/quote]
It’s no mystery. Be direct, be honest, don’t presume, and don’t attempt to lead. I am easy.
If God, only exists in a book, then it is a fairy tale.[/quote]
I got the lulz today, twice!
First, Protestant Christian friend of mine asks me if I wanted to live as the first Christians. I quickly said, no…I really wouldn’t want to be slaughtered by St. Paul and his posse, although I might have a fun time cutting off people’s ears with St. Peter and then being crucified upside down, or calling down an air strike on the Samaritan village with James and John walking everywhere might be difficult on my knees. Set back by my statement, I told him I was only joking and then I asked him if he wished to have the life and faith of the first Christians? He immediately perked up and said, “yes!” So, I asked him for his Bible and he handed it to me, I put it in my book bag and zipped it up, and told him to go to Mass.
Taken back by this, I explained to them that the Bible wasn’t put together until 400 A.D. and it would have cost him five years of his salary (about 15 grand) to buy a Bible for himself and that he would have to rely on hearing someone read it out loud.
Second, Southern Baptist preacher…hey preacher, how you doing today? Good, so did you pray your rosary today? Preacher says, “what…you know I don’t pray no rosary, I ain’t Catholic.” Oh…and why not? What do you have against the Gospel? Preacher says, “What you talking about son, you know I love the Gospel, I read the Gospel every day.” Okay then you read the Gospel, but why don’t you pray the Gospel, the Rosary is the gospel!? Preacher says, “How is the Rosary praying the Gospel?” I’m glad you asked…the Annunciation (Lk 1:28)…Visitation (Lk 1:41-43)…the Nativity (Lk 2:6-7)…The Presentation (Lk 2:22)…The Finding in the Temple (Lk 2:46)…Agony in the Garden…The Scourging…Crowning…Carrying of the Cross…Crucifixion…Resurrection…Ascension…Descent of the Holy Ghost…all in the Bible, the last two can be deduced from Scripture…Preacher says, “Oh yeah, and what about those prayers you say over and over again?” I’m glad you asked! “Lord teach us how to pray!” Go back to the Gospel, the Lord’s prayer, “When you pray, pray like this 'Our Father, who art in Heaven.” Preacher says, “Well, I got you now! Where do you get that Hail Mary?”…I’m glad you asked (big smile on my face), go back to Luke “Full of grace, blessed are thou among women” The angel Gabriel addresses Mary, and when Elizabeth sees her cousin Mary, The Lord is with thee, blessed is the fruit of thy womb!
I got a whole family of Black! Southern Baptist’s praying 15-20 decades of the Rosary after supper, just like my pappy taught us. Now, talk about finding the cure for racism, recognizing that we all have the same mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Except we don’t. We’ll stick with recognizing our common Father who actually is. I also want no faith or life other than what God in His perfect providence has given me which, glory be to His name, includes ready ubiquitous access to the conspicuously mass free scriptures.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Why do you call them former Catholics, >>>[/quote]Because they will then know how they got there. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:perhaps you are wrong and perhaps the Holy Ghost has stayed with the Bride, and perhaps Jesus did mean that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the divine part of the Church, which is the teaching which is the truth. >>>[/quote]I don’t think I know what this means. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Presumption of salvation without merit is a capital sin against the Holy Ghost.[/quote]This a redundancy. A person presuming they are saved, without merit (when they’re not) aren’t saved. The presumption has only deluded them into denying what was always the case.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You condemned me the other day for having Zeal without knowledge, then you condemn someone else for searching for the truth as the Greeks did…you do realize that the Septuagint was in Greek, that the Jews with which Jesus came from were Hellenistic Jews. All truth is from G-d, what is wrong with finding truth in which ever way we can find G-d? [/quote]I have and condemned no one and indeed cannot condemn anyone. I have reported what God Himself says in HIS word.
The Greeks also had mass sex orgies and all manner of perversion in the temples of artemis and apollo. So what? Paul’s entire message in their regard was about how foolish and wrong Greek thought was. He says the gospel message is SUPPOSED to be foolishness to them because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Not that we should adopt their sinful self exalting epistemology as the intellectual foundation of the cross of Christ for God’s sake. Aristotle’s 4th book of the metaphysics is brilliant, but as propounded is also an abomination in the sight of the God who created him. Thomas sold his soul to the guy instead of recognizing the God of all creation as the eternal fount alone from which springs all truth. Man I wish we lived near each other. This is frickin impossible to do online.[/quote]
Yes, and “Christians” have had mass sex orgies now. Glad we figured that out. So, they are sinners great. I am not saying that mass sex orgies are good, they are a sin against G-d and humanity. I am saying they search for truth was noble. Just like Protestants reverence for the Bible, reverence for a relationship with Christ is noble, their doctrines are not always noble and their disobedience to the full truth is not. Muslim’s submission to G-d is noble, their denying of the full truth of Jesus is not. Buddhist can be admired for their awareness of themselves and their neighbor is admirable, their atheism cannot be.
We can admire the noble parts and cast away the weeds. Cut off the branch that does not grow good fruit, so the rest of the tree can grow more.
Did you really just say St. Thomas Aquinas sold his soul? You think the man that experienced ecstasy celebrating the Lord’s Mass sold his soul? You think the man that wrote more about mysticism in which to experience G-d more fully sold his soul? What is wrong with you, you obviously lack knowledge of not only Catholicism, you lack knowledge of the saints.[/quote]
What?? You mean some truth can be found in all religions? How dare you think outside the black and white box! Unless you see things exactly as Tiribulus sees them, you are damned to suffer forever in hell.