[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.[/quote]
If he’s 20 years old and has already read several versions of the Bible that means he must have begun at a very early age and read on a regular basis. And then when he was finished decided that all the reading was a waste because of certain contradictions. And those contradictions were only noticed after he was finished reading that one final version.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< If I am wrong, you better come off with something better than ‘Catholics are evil’ or ‘Fine pat’.
You did not honestly think I would let you off that easy, did you?
Do better.[/quote]I don’t even know how to begin to respond to this. Even Brother Chris, who disagrees on an avalanche of Catholic basis with at least 90% of everything I say, is not going to accuse me of not giving reasons for what I believe. He disagrees with almost all of them, but they have definitely been given. This Jake guy has been around here about a half hour and I guarantee you that HE will not accuse me of not having stated reasons for what I say. I have humongous, loooong posts with detailed scriptural reasons for everything I’ve said. So many and so long that I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most people won’t read them at all. (but I post em anyway jist in case and God knows who may be lurking, but not posting).
But here comes Pat with “when are ya gonna say sumthin dood?” I dunno, there must be a supernatural barrier keeping us from communicating or something. Also, once again your assessment of the Gospel in your list is a damnable lie. It is a reproach to Christ and powerless to save. I will not waste more of God’s time typing another long detailed biblical decimation of this lie only to have you ask me when I’m gonna say something.
[/quote]
Seems you didn’t understand what you read then. You claim biblical literalism, but you only follow the parts you like and virtually ignore the parts you don’t. But you cannot answer my questions or make any compelling arguments. Last time I checked damning me to hell is not an argument.
So let’s start with something simple. You say Catholicism is evil, many many times, yet you don’t say why, so why? Again, it is the church that Jesus established by his own authority, it is scriptural. He also said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So was his establishment of the church a metaphor? What is it? Why did his church become so evil.
Last time I checked, Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc, claim no divine inspiration.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.[/quote]
If he’s 20 years old and has already read several versions of the Bible that means he must have begun at a very early age and read on a regular basis. And then when he was finished decided that all the reading was a waste because of certain contradictions. And those contradictions were only noticed after he was finished reading that one final version.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight… to be “properly” opposed to Christianity I need to be trilingual and have a Ph.D in theology, but to BE a Christian all I need is ignorance based obedience? “Well, I don’t understand this here Buy-bull, but that’s OKAY cuz MR. Priestman over here gets it. I’m too stoopid to understand it myself, but this priest man, who’s livelihood is based on the ignorance of men like me, says it all makes sense and that’s good enough for me!” ~ fool-proof logic…
… Yeah, I think I’m just about done here. Your arguments are getting worse by the post. If this is all you have left, there’s nothing left that needs to be established.
Your bible is flawed and you are a very ignorant man.[/quote]
No…when did I say you had to know three languages to be opposed to Christianity? No…when did I say I needed ignorance based obedience to be a Catholic? I said I needed to be guided by the Magisterium, as a Catholic I am still required to study, know my faith and use reason to defend my faith (teaching of the Magisterium).
And Priests are not included in the Magisterium. Even if they were, that is not how it goes. Maybe you should learn about the Magisterium before you talk shit about Magisterium?
That’s fine, I can’t help it if you’re ignornant of the truth of the Bible. I tried my best, I already gave up on you because of your feminine wiles.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Well that depends on which church, doesn’t it. Another strange thing about your religion, entire wars have been fought over how to interpret certain verses, yet God has made no effort to establish which interpretation is correct. [/quote]
The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, the one that wrote the Bible.
Which war was fought over how to interpret certain verses, and what verses was it?
And the reason is because the Holy Ghost guides the Catholic Church. And, how do you suppose God make an effort to establish which interpretation is correct? When he already established the Catholic Church?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.[/quote]And that is THEE most precious and glorious explanation of all. I do pray that you one day have that testimony. When you have feasted on His love and mercy and glimpsed His beautiful face it is more than crystal clear.
[/quote]
Sorry, I think it’s lame. God chooses all, we choose to listen or to not listen. It’s called freewill…Oh, you don’t believe that. You believe God created most people to be damned; which is retarded.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
How so? Be specific. [/quote]
All your ‘arguments’ have been made by other athiests. They got them from virtually same sources but unfortunately for you they provided the links. So you ain’t breaking any new ground, I have seen in all before. Same exact things.
So you reckon your self a biblical scholar do you? These questions should be easy for you then, we’ll do a little test.
Who wrote the bible?
When was it written?
Who removed books from the bible and why? What books were they?
Which books got put back?
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
<<< Along with what you mean by “works intended to recommend us to God”? I don’t want that to be the focus of this discussion. I am just curious what you meant by that. Mostly I want to continue along the topic we were on, faith, man, God, good works, grace, and their interplay (in both theory and practice).[/quote]But that IS the issue. I gotta tell ya man. I am wearing out. Maybe I shouldn’t be, but I have lots to think about and I have typed my fingers bloody on every aspect of all this 20 times each already.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I’ll make ya a deal. You say you’ve read a lot of Calvinistic materials. You may have, but it sure doesn’t seem like you have a very solid understanding of that theology. I truly mean that as no offense, but you’re asking me questions that should have already been long answered to someone who’s even read a short pamphlet on the TULIP outline which you actually asked me about.
Here’s my deal if you’re really interested. Read at least several pages of that Van Til piece, but preferably the whole thing and we’ll talk from there. What he propounds there is the foundation of every firing of every synapse in my brain. However ,as he says, the unregenerate will not get it. That is precisely what the doctrines of sin and death and new life in the reformed tradition (yes, we have tradition, never have denied that) which is really just the simple pure gospel, is all about. Wadda ya say?
[/quote]
OK, I’ll come clean with you (well mostly). I don’t like to play all my cards at once if you understand my meaning. Perhaps I have feigned ignorance to some degree, but I think if you go back and look at my questions they were about and directed to you and what you thought not what was meant by TULIP for instance. I am and was interested in what you had to say (not Calvin as I know what he wrote).
I read your excerpt from Van Til and I understand what he is saying, but he makes an absolute caricature of the arminian (Mr. Grey) which does not exactly relate to the Catholic anyway. I’ll expound on this some more later, but I’ve got no time now.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.[/quote]
If you don’t care that your bible is flawed and I find it as such… then why the FUCK do you keep talking to me? I didn’t start messaging you remember, YOU came to ME. If you don’t want to talk to me, then DON’T.
[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]
Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.
Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.
Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.
I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.
I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.
If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…
Pat, you raise several good points that are worth discussing. I want to do them justice, so am going to earmark this post and come back to it once we finish discussing the first point.
It seems to me that what you call the deductive cosmological form is logically contradictory to the idea of an uncaused cause. It states that everything has a cause, and if true it is impossible for there to be an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is impossible, according to the deductive cosmological form. If an uncaused cause exists, it disproves the idea that everything must have a cause.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Yes, but I disagree. As stated to Captain Planet, the uncaused-cause does not occupy the same logical space. Being uncaused does not automatically disable it from causing. They are two separate properties. If it were the uncausible-causer, then we have a contradiction. It also must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, which does not disable it’s ability to cause (if it wants too), but nothing outside of it can forcibly change it or move it.
Infinity can exist just fine, but an infinite regress cannot because it deals with subtraction. Eventually, your run out of shit to subtract. So you either have to answer the question with something, or go back to the beginning.
It is possible for matter and energy to have always existed, that doesn’t solve the problem of dependency. Same for the laws that matter and energy adhere to like, not being able to be created or destroyed. And indeed, it may never have. The big question there is can or did God create everything out of nothing, or did he create it out of himself which already existsÃ???¦.I have no clue.
There are more problems though, you have paradoxes to deal with too, like Xeno’s paradox. Some say dividing by time solves it but it does not. Dividing by time only tells you where you are on the line, not how you got there.
[/quote]
That’s fine if it can be further reduced. We thought we knew the elementary particles of the atom, only to discover even more fundamental particles. However, there is zero evidence for the idea that there are no core fundamental particles. Maybe we haven’t drilled down to the lowest level of granularity yet, but clearly they exist. If they didn’t, what do you think matter is made of?
The whole reducibility argument is a red herring. Think about it. Nobody is arguing that only the core components of matter have always existed. Maybe the more complex forms, like atoms and molecules, have always existed. Where is your proof that this isn’t the case? We have a very large amount of evidence supporting the law that matter can’t be created or destroyed. If you allow that this law may not have existed at one point in time, you must also allow that other laws, like determinism and randomness, may have been different.
Pat, the logical contradiction isn’t that if something isn’t caused, it cannot cause.
The contradiction is claiming that everything must have a cause. If that is true, an uncaused cause is impossible.
Your argument against an infinite regress only makes sense if you think narrowly of time as a fixed quantity. However, the laws of relativity show that time is not a fixed quantity. If you acknowledge the possibility of timelessness, an infinite regress doesn’t create a logical contradiction.
And again, there is no problem of dependency if you accept that something (e.g., god or energy/matter) has always existed. By definition, something that has always existed doesn’t depend on anything else in order to exist. It had no beginning, hence it has no cause.
[/quote]
I’ll answer backwards, what makes matter and energy what it is? Sorry to answer a question with a question but the answer, answers your question… Time is irrelevant here, it simply does not matter. Whether it exists infinitely or not, matter and energy is made of stuff and do stuff because of stuff.
Infinite regress is a logical fallacy, because it necessarily begs the question. It’s not the same as arguing against infinity. For instance, what’s an atom made of? why does it do what it does. Where does the stuff that made the atom come from. etc. As you answer each question you’re ‘removing’ properties. This process always leads to the same place. Further, the fewer properties something has, the more it has in common with everything else. For instance, If I held a proton from a gold atom and a proton from a dog shit molecule could you tell the difference? Further, if I were to switched them and put them back, the dog shit would remain dog shit, and the gold would remain gold even though I switched out their protons.
Not everything is contingent, by necessity one thing cannot be. Further, there cannot be more than one non-contingent thing, because regression reduces to one (and always the same one), or none. Since none cannot do anything, one must.
Some have argued, that God’s existence is contingent on the universe, but that’s not so because he can exist and never caused anything, we just wouldn’t be around to question it…[/quote]
Pat, let’s agree and be very clear on the point that not everything is contingent.
If not everything is contingent, something must not be contingent. That something was never created. That something has always existed.
Agreed?
Given that, how can you logically rule out the possibility that matter/energy is that something?
You can’t argue that “it’s impossible, because everything is contingent”. We’ve already agreed that not everything is contingent.
Do you acknowledge the logical possibility that matter/energy have always existed?[/quote]
Yes, I have acknowledged it a few times and addressed why it does not matter if it has.
Not everything is contingent, but only one thing can be non-contingent. Follow the path of regression and it becomes very evident. Take any object and regress it. A straw, made of plastic, exists in my kitchen, designed to reduce pressure on a liquid so that it travel upwards, etc. Where’d the plastic come from, why can the straw rather be an air plane, etc. You can do this exercise with anything and it will always lead to the same place., every time.
If you like science, you need causation to exist with out randomness. If you have randomness, scientific conclusions become mere correlation and virtually meaningless. It already teeters on that edge in a lot of cases.
The only response I’ve seen so far is that matter can’t be noncontingent because everything except one thing must be contingent.
How do you know matter isn’t that noncontingent thing?
And how do you know there is only one noncontingent thing? Maybe matter is ultimately constituted of three core elements that cannot be further reduced.[/quote]
But it is not. That’s the problem. It can be further reduced.
I really don’t want to take you through a regression on the forum, it takes to long. Just give it a shot. You’ll see what I mean. Everything rolls up into one, no matter what it is. [/quote]
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.[/quote]
If he’s 20 years old and has already read several versions of the Bible that means he must have begun at a very early age and read on a regular basis. And then when he was finished decided that all the reading was a waste because of certain contradictions. And those contradictions were only noticed after he was finished reading that one final version.
(clears throat) You think he’s lying huh?
[/quote]
I’m not an idiot. I know certain versions translates certain verses differently. It’s only logical that I look into them before debating about it.
FYI, the bible is actually a pretty easy book to get through (especially the new testiment). It hardly takes years to get through a few versions.
Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight… to be “properly” opposed to Christianity I need to be trilingual and have a Ph.D in theology, but to BE a Christian all I need is ignorance based obedience? [/quote]
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight… to be “properly” opposed to Christianity I need to be trilingual and have a Ph.D in theology, but to BE a Christian all I need is ignorance based obedience? “Well, I don’t understand this here Buy-bull, but that’s OKAY cuz MR. Priestman over here gets it. I’m too stoopid to understand it myself, but this priest man, who’s livelihood is based on the ignorance of men like me, says it all makes sense and that’s good enough for me!” ~ fool-proof logic…
… Yeah, I think I’m just about done here. Your arguments are getting worse by the post. If this is all you have left, there’s nothing left that needs to be established.
Your bible is flawed and you are a very ignorant man.[/quote]
No…when did I say you had to know three languages to be opposed to Christianity? No…when did I say I needed ignorance based obedience to be a Catholic? I said I needed to be guided by the Magisterium, as a Catholic I am still required to study, know my faith and use reason to defend my faith (teaching of the Magisterium).
And Priests are not included in the Magisterium. Even if they were, that is not how it goes. Maybe you should learn about the Magisterium before you talk shit about Magisterium?
That’s fine, I can’t help it if you’re ignornant of the truth of the Bible. I tried my best, I already gave up on you because of your feminine wiles. [/quote]
… Did you forget all that stuff about needing to understand the Hebrew and Greek version, or are you going to pretend that didn’t happen?
You’ve said I can’t be properly opposed to Christianity because “doctors” who are uber-smrt argue over the bible… therefore my arguments must be faulty (lol). HOWEVER it’s perfectly okay to be FOR Christianity because the CHURCH will guide you and tell you that it all adds up and that’s good enough for you!
Your obedience is based on ignorance and when someone comes to you with a genuine contradiction you merely brush it off as “ignorance”, offer no argument otherwise and say that your church says it’s true and that’s better than ANY form of logic or empirical evidence it seems. =/
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.[/quote]
If you don’t care that your bible is flawed and I find it as such… then why the FUCK do you keep talking to me? I didn’t start messaging you remember, YOU came to ME. If you don’t want to talk to me, then DON’T.[/quote]
No, was talking to BC, you butted in. I don’t care if you think it’s flawed. And I am happy to not talk to you… I am holding back the tears but I’ll get through.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.[/quote]And that is THEE most precious and glorious explanation of all. I do pray that you one day have that testimony. When you have feasted on His love and mercy and glimpsed His beautiful face it is more than crystal clear.
[/quote]
At least you’re admitting that your religious beliefs aren’t supported by logic.
Now if you would kindly google confirmatory bias, you might begin to understand how your profound emotional experience was likely a product of your subconscious mind. People have these profound experiences all the time, yet they reach unreconcilably contradictory conclusions about god and salvation. Does the idea of your experiences being subconsciously driven scare you?
Wait wait wait, lemme get this straight… to be “properly” opposed to Christianity I need to be trilingual and have a Ph.D in theology, but to BE a Christian all I need is ignorance based obedience? [/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.[/quote]And that is THEE most precious and glorious explanation of all. I do pray that you one day have that testimony. When you have feasted on His love and mercy and glimpsed His beautiful face it is more than crystal clear.
[/quote]
You dont think its interesting that a person who grew up in America, surrounded by various forms of Christianity, has an experience they cant explain and… gasp! it must be God!
And when someone who grew up in a country surrounded by Islam has an experience they cant explain… gasp! it must be Allah!
Someone grows up around Hinduism, has an experience they can’t explain… Vishnu! clearly, Vishnu.
Christianity is nothing special and your personal experience means as little to me as a Muslims account of interaction with Allah means to you.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Well that depends on which church, doesn’t it. Another strange thing about your religion, entire wars have been fought over how to interpret certain verses, yet God has made no effort to establish which interpretation is correct. [/quote]
The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, the one that wrote the Bible.
Which war was fought over how to interpret certain verses, and what verses was it?
And the reason is because the Holy Ghost guides the Catholic Church. And, how do you suppose God make an effort to establish which interpretation is correct? When he already established the Catholic Church?[/quote]
Wow. Such pomp.
I’m pretty sure far more than one war has been fought over how to interpret your bible. (e.g. French War, Thirty year war).
The holy ghost guides the church? Well then, this holy ghost is doing a rather shabby job, but that doesn’t matter because I was talking about the bible (note the word “interpretation”). Why didn’t God insure his bible would be written properly, contradiction free?
Also, God established the catholic church? I’m pretty sure Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea is what formed the bible we now have today. Where was God when this was going on? Why did he allow them to use such contradictory verses? Did God leave it up to the Holy Ghost, but this ghost just wasn’t up to the task? Shouldn’t God have foreseen this?
Honestly, I don’t see why God could establish the church AND make sure it is guided competently. I mean, he is GOD. Why can he only do one?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
… Did you forget all that stuff about needing to understand the Hebrew and Greek version, or are you going to pretend that didn’t happen?
You’ve said I can’t be properly opposed to Christianity because “doctors” who are uber-smrt argue over the bible… therefore my arguments must be faulty (lol). HOWEVER it’s perfectly okay to be FOR Christianity because the CHURCH will guide you and tell you that it all adds up and that’s good enough for you!
Your obedience is based on ignorance and when someone comes to you with a genuine contradiction you merely brush it off as “ignorance”, offer no argument otherwise and say that your church says it’s true and that’s better than ANY form of logic or empirical evidence it seems. =/[/quote]
Yes…you are good at the art of proof texting, and that is pretty insulting and bigotted to assume that my obedience is based on ignorance when you know nothing about me. I hope one day you learn your folly and realise your lack of openness to the truth. Coming to the table with the idea that you’re right is the wrong disposition. I hope you do not mind, but I’ll have to decline to continue this as it seems that neither of us is getting anywhere and you continue with the ad hominem attacks on my intelligence and the straw man arguments on what is taught by the Church.
For your own sake, pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and since you read so much, read through the whole thing and actually learn what I believe even on a shallow level, and maybe I’ll think about engaging you.
