[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This will be further addressed as we progress in the epistemology thread Chris.
[/quote]
Okay, then I am not sure why it was brought up. I still can’t connect why you brought up Theistic evolution in anyway. But, I digress.
I’ll wait for your reply.
Regards,
BC
I’m not stringing you guys along. Honest. I am just wiped out and have not had the time to do justice to your guys posts.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not stringing you guys along. Honest. I am just wiped out and have not had the time to do justice to your guys posts.[/quote]
That’s if you can do justice at all. 
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Say, whatever happened to brother Chris?
Did he get raptured or something?[/quote]
I hope not, I don’t want to be raptured. EVER! Part of my spiritual direction was to shut up when someone came at the Catholic Church. So for several months I did not argue.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Say, whatever happened to brother Chris?
Did he get raptured or something?[/quote]He’s busy. VERY busy. He couldn’t have gotten raptured because I’m still here =] Besides. God hasn’t answered my ongoing prayer for your salvation yet so I’m willing to tarry a bit longer. I won’t forget about ya Eph.
[/quote]
I honestly hope no one I know gets raptured at the Second Coming. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The dark ages, burning bibles and people, the Ustachi in the last century, pedophilia in this century.
[/quote]
I have one question before I address this…why are rejecting institutes were around during the dark ages?
Of course we are talking about the Catholic Church since it is the only institute that has been here for the entire dark ages. I still don’t understand why you included that dark ages, if you could qualify that qualification.
Burning Bibles and people?
Church of England
Calvinism
Lutheranism (he did worse than burn a Bible)
Anabaptist (sad because I always had a yearning to become Amish)
Ustachi in the last century?
I don’t quite know what that is, but I’m guessing it has something to do with trying to link the Vatican to Nazis. Strange, because all the Germanic Bishops declared that those who were nationalist socialist were excommunicated de facto. But you already disqualified the Catholic Church before this one.
Pedophilia?
Emerging Church
Evangelical Church
Orthodox
Jews
Muslims
Teachers
Dads
Coaches
Uncles/Cousins/Male Family
So, you have excluded pretty much anything that is old, Christian (actually any religion), made up of sinners, and includes males in its ranks.
Cool, so what authority do I look to, to know what books are in the bible? So far it seems like the only authority is me.
[/quote]
If you understand God better than a 2,000 year old tradition, you must be pretty smart.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I often find that I seek an answer or confirmation and it comes to me. I know that I have beliefs in religion and the teachings, but the prectice is unbearable. I picked up a copy of Tolstoys Confessions and Other Religious Writings, which I stumbled upon at the book store, and found that he had the very same argument with himself that I had and am having with myself. He has very sound reasoning in my assesment, and I am curious if any of you might acknowlede there might be something to what he is saying in the above section. I also think he makes the strongest rational argument against Athism I have ever read, if for no other reason I think this makes this book worth reading. [/quote]
It’s an argument against Atheism as long as someone doesn’t point out that his first argument is circular (the first and third parts of his premise).
The most reasonable arguments for G-d’s existence I have found are these:
Wow this is old, but would you mind explaining the last 2 Chris?[/quote]
Personal Experience is an argument that goes like this: Supposing someone is not a loon, if they have a personal experience of God, then we can take it that they did not just experience it in their mind and that there is credence to God being real.
Jesus of Nazareth argument has a more complicated argument.
There are several events:
Historical Jesus & Resurrection
Women Witnessing Empty Tomb
Martyrs/Attitude Change
Basically, with these things being true, if you try to deny one of them, the rest don’t make sense. I may have forgotten one, but I believe these are all the ones in my argument (my notes are on my desk).
So, there is a historical Jesus who was crucified. Jesus was Resurrected, and this was known by the women first. Jesus came back and this is what changed a bunch of scared Jews to fearless rebels against the persecutors to the point they were martyred.
If you deny the historical Jesus who was crucified and was resurrected, there are two things that go against this: 1) Why were there martyrs then? 2) Why did they say that women saw that he was gone from his tomb?
If can say, that the fearless rebels lied…well, they could have, but not really. People lie all the time, but what they don’t do is die for a lie. It is possible that one person might, but a large group of people won’t. But, if they were lying another thing is strange. Why in the world did they say women witnesses Jesus empty tomb? Women have no authority to testify. That’s like saying a infant witnessed the empty tomb.
I completely forgot the rest of the debate. I’ll have to get the rest of it when I find my notes, sorry my uncompleted answer.
Regards,
BC
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I often find that I seek an answer or confirmation and it comes to me. I know that I have beliefs in religion and the teachings, but the prectice is unbearable. I picked up a copy of Tolstoys Confessions and Other Religious Writings, which I stumbled upon at the book store, and found that he had the very same argument with himself that I had and am having with myself. He has very sound reasoning in my assesment, and I am curious if any of you might acknowlede there might be something to what he is saying in the above section. I also think he makes the strongest rational argument against Athism I have ever read, if for no other reason I think this makes this book worth reading. [/quote]
It’s an argument against Atheism as long as someone doesn’t point out that his first argument is circular (the first and third parts of his premise).
The most reasonable arguments for G-d’s existence I have found are these:
Wow this is old, but would you mind explaining the last 2 Chris?[/quote]
Personal Experience is an argument that goes like this: Supposing someone is not a loon, if they have a personal experience of God, then we can take it that they did not just experience it in their mind and that there is credence to God being real.
Jesus of Nazareth argument has a more complicated argument.
There are several events:
Historical Jesus & Resurrection
Women Witnessing Empty Tomb
Martyrs/Attitude Change
Basically, with these things being true, if you try to deny one of them, the rest don’t make sense. I may have forgotten one, but I believe these are all the ones in my argument (my notes are on my desk).
So, there is a historical Jesus who was crucified. Jesus was Resurrected, and this was known by the women first. Jesus came back and this is what changed a bunch of scared Jews to fearless rebels against the persecutors to the point they were martyred.
If you deny the historical Jesus who was crucified and was resurrected, there are two things that go against this: 1) Why were there martyrs then? 2) Why did they say that women saw that he was gone from his tomb?
If can say, that the fearless rebels lied…well, they could have, but not really. People lie all the time, but what they don’t do is die for a lie. It is possible that one person might, but a large group of people won’t. But, if they were lying another thing is strange. Why in the world did they say women witnesses Jesus empty tomb? Women have no authority to testify. That’s like saying a infant witnessed the empty tomb.
I completely forgot the rest of the debate. I’ll have to get the rest of it when I find my notes, sorry my uncompleted answer.
Regards,
BC[/quote]
If martyrdom entails truth, then Muslim Suicide Bombers must be right.
The excesses of the RC Church were more pronounced during the dark ages. I think you know enough about her history to concur with this. I guess your meaning is the institution has been reformed, and bringing up the dark ages isn’t really fair anymore. I would argue the institution has not reformed it’s foundation, and that’s the main problem.
I intended to point at institutional evils, not individuals that do evil, and are part of an institution or association, like say a highschool coaching association. The Ustachi is an interesting example to consider, as you say it was disavowed. It would be worth researching how closely they tied their actions to their Catholicism. But I’ll leave that to you. However, such institutional brutality as the inquisition was official practice.
Now that we are clear that we are not excluding all groups made up of sinners, you may want to rephrase this. You yourself are of course a sinner, and God will help you as an individual as much as he will help a group. Conversely, when you stand before God, you cannot say- I did it that way because the Church taught me to do so.
I hope you’ve read through my exchange with Sloth above, as he is essentially asking the same thing. I must say, your need for an “authority” to tell you what the bible teaches, or what it even is, is exactly a symptomatic carry over from the dark ages. The RC Church teaching was (and still is as far as I know) that an individual (man), cannot know what is right without the traditions of the church (an association of men) to tell him so. Please think carefully about this. Does it make sense that if God wants you to have a personal relationship with him, that you must go through an institution? A priest class is an Old Testament institution. This verse describes all Christians in NT the church age:
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5 KJV)
The last time I attended Mass was more than 30 years ago. At that time, the laity did not get to drink.
Hardly. Paul never reported to Peter once.
Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
(Act 15:13 KJV)
(James speaking) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Act 15:19)
Once Paul even had to rebuke Peter:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)
Sorry Pat, James was the first pope, and Paul was the second. Peter never got to be pope. He was too impetuous and emotional.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The excesses of the RC Church were more pronounced during the dark ages. I think you know enough about her history to concur with this. I guess your meaning is the institution has been reformed, and bringing up the dark ages isn’t really fair anymore. I would argue the institution has not reformed it’s foundation, and that’s the main problem.
I intended to point at institutional evils, not individuals that do evil, and are part of an institution or association, like say a highschool coaching association. The Ustachi is an interesting example to consider, as you say it was disavowed. It would be worth researching how closely they tied their actions to their Catholicism. But I’ll leave that to you. However, such institutional brutality as the inquisition was official practice.
Now that we are clear that we are not excluding all groups made up of sinners, you may want to rephrase this. You yourself are of course a sinner, and God will help you as an individual as much as he will help a group. Conversely, when you stand before God, you cannot say- I did it that way because the Church taught me to do so.
I hope you’ve read through my exchange with Sloth above, as he is essentially asking the same thing. I must say, your need for an “authority” to tell you what the bible teaches, or what it even is, is exactly a symptomatic carry over from the dark ages. The RC Church teaching was (and still is as far as I know) that an individual (man), cannot know what is right without the traditions of the church (an association of men) to tell him so. Please think carefully about this. Does it make sense that if God wants you to have a personal relationship with him, that you must go through an institution? A priest class is an Old Testament institution. This verse describes all Christians in NT the church age:
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (1Pe 2:5 KJV)
[/quote]
Why speak for the RCC if you don’t even understand what the RCC teaches? Do you actually think someone reading the Bible will become closer to God? Have you even read the OT? If you lived during that time, you would have been slaughtered. St. Paul clearly indicates in Hebrews 7 that Christ was a priest in the order of Melchizedek which is echoed in the Catholic Liturgy. You have no idea what you are talking about.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
The last time I attended Mass was more than 30 years ago. At that time, the laity did not get to drink.
Hardly. Paul never reported to Peter once.
Peter reported to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. James presided, and made the final decision concerning what action to take:
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
(Act 15:13 KJV)
(James speaking) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (Act 15:19)
Once Paul even had to rebuke Peter:
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal 2:11)
Sorry Pat, James was the first pope, and Paul was the second. Peter never got to be pope. He was too impetuous and emotional.
[/quote]
You also forget that all Christianity descends from Catholicism. This is a fact. Also, the Didache, a second century manual for Christians is the exact ceremony Catholics do today. Any other worship ceremony is a fraud.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Say, whatever happened to brother Chris?
Did he get raptured or something?[/quote]He’s busy. VERY busy. He couldn’t have gotten raptured because I’m still here =] Besides. God hasn’t answered my ongoing prayer for your salvation yet so I’m willing to tarry a bit longer. I won’t forget about ya Eph.
[/quote]
I honestly hope no one I know gets raptured at the Second Coming. :D[/quote]
There is no rapture. You won’t have to worry. The rapture was never taught in the early Christian community. It is a myth propagated over a thousand years later by protestants.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
If martyrdom entails truth, then Muslim Suicide Bombers must be right.
[/quote]
You do understand there is a fundamental difference between Christian and Muslim martyrs?
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Say, whatever happened to brother Chris?
Did he get raptured or something?[/quote]He’s busy. VERY busy. He couldn’t have gotten raptured because I’m still here =] Besides. God hasn’t answered my ongoing prayer for your salvation yet so I’m willing to tarry a bit longer. I won’t forget about ya Eph.
[/quote]
I honestly hope no one I know gets raptured at the Second Coming. :D[/quote]
There is no rapture. You won’t have to worry. The rapture was never taught in the early Christian community. It is a myth propagated over a thousand years later by protestants. [/quote]
Well, I wouldn’t say there isn’t a rapture…there is, like Sodom saw. Rapture or translated properly “taken up” or “caught up” is what those that went against God experienced, not the servants of God.
The servants of God go to meet the Lord as he comes to Earth, but they come back down.
Regards,
BC
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
Do you actually think someone reading the Bible will become closer to God? Have you even read the OT?
[/quote]
Yes I do, and I have:
Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word. (Psa 119:148 KJV)
Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psa 119:11)
I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. (Psa 119:15-16)
It doesn’t take much to do better than your crew. I cursory reading of Acts will allow even a halfwit to know Peter wasn’t the first pope. Just because they wear spiffy robes, doesn’t mean you should follow them.
Thy testimonies also are my delight and my counselors. (Psa 119:24)
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
If you understand God better than a 2,000 year old tradition, you must be pretty smart.
[/quote]
My sentiments.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
If you lived during that time, you would have been slaughtered.[/quote]
If I lived during the OT time, I would be slaughtered for what.
Your ignorance is downright spooky.
When I worked in the psych hospital way back in the eighties, there was no internet on the ward of course. Do you have access on the unit now? It must be a privilege that’s earned though.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
If you understand God better than a 2,000 year old tradition, you must be pretty smart.
[/quote]
My sentiments.[/quote]
Disappointing to see you concur with this guy Chris.
Would you slaughter me if you had the authority Mr. Fibroid?