Always good to see my dear brother Chen =] “full of” may be a bit overstated LOL!, but your point stands. There cannot be in this life and age a monolithic visible church of Christ which is evinced in loud blinking neon by the very things you cite. Absolute Corporate unity is a command and ideal as is perfect personal holiness, neither of which is attainable before the resurrection.
If you guys are done curb-stomping the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t mind reading more about the supposed original topic of this thread.
Epistemology - Wikipedia Good for a definition and broad overview of what the subject is for those just arriving to lurk or post or those who need a reminder.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you guys are done curb-stomping the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t mind reading more about the supposed original topic of this thread. [/quote]As I say, Thomism Thomism - Wikipedia will be unavoidable, but this chapter was instigated by Captain Fibro here who alleges to be one of yours and maybe a canon lawyer to boot if I can ever get an answer. I mean that as no jab. Especially at you. I’m jist sayin.
Aquinas was one of the most colossal intellects, maybe two, ever to be spawned on this earth in my opinion. But he was wrong and left us a lesson unparalleled in church history.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you guys are done curb-stomping the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t mind reading more about the supposed original topic of this thread. [/quote]As I say, Thomism Thomism - Wikipedia will be unavoidable, but this chapter was instigated by Captain Fibro here who alleges to be one of yours and maybe a canon lawyer to boot if I can ever get an answer. I mean that as no jab. Especially at you. I’m jist sayin.
Aquinas was one of the most colossal intellects, maybe two, ever to be spawned on this earth in my opinion. But he was wrong and left us a lesson unparalleled in church history.
[/quote]
I think that protestants are in no authority to judge the church.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< I think that protestants are in no authority to judge the church.[/quote]YOU DON"T??? Well bless God I better knock it off then. =] I do realize that I have not been very considerate of others as far as hijacking their threads, but you have a half dozen goin yourself. Could I prevail upon you to keep the Catholic apologetics in one or more of them unless related to epistemology? I would consider you to be a hip n groovy dood if you would. OR… you can flip me off and do what ya want. Not my site.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:<<< I think that protestants are in no authority to judge the church.[/quote]YOU DON"T??? Well bless God I better knock it off then. =] I do realize that I have not been very considerate of others as far as hijacking their threads, but you have a half dozen goin yourself. Could I prevail upon you to keep the Catholic apologetics in one or more of them unless related to epistemology? I would consider you to be a hip n groovy dood if you would. OR… you can flip me off and do what ya want. Not my site.
[/quote]
I agree. Please. Let’s remain on topic. Fb use one of your threads if you want to argue this angle. You are about as bad as anyone right now for derailing threads.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< I see one free willer on the invitation list. >>>[/quote]I see all free willers. [quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Is there a difference in proselytizing to Jews and Catholics tirib?[/quote]It depends more on the individuals. Ultimately though? Not really. Everybody needs Jesus. And for the same reason too. Catholics and Jews are not even int he same galaxy theologically speaking though. That may come into play. Again, depending on the individuals.
The key is faithfulness no matter what. People do the preaching, but God does the saving. That doesn’t mean being obnoxious for obnoxiousness sake, but it does mean not compromising truth to avoid making somebody angry. It’s an affront to the gospel when people water it down to make it more palatable. That leads to false shallow conversion and pews filled with artificial dead religionists.
[/quote]
What about Calvin’s views on infant baptism?
Calvin declares that “infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God”(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11).
Where does that leave the unbaptised and those baptised outside of ‘the’ church?
EDIT: Not trying to have a go at you and I realise it’s off topic. But it seems to me Calvin advocated and tried to develop a samilar sort of theocracy to the Catholic church.[/quote]
Is God somehow bound by the Law of Baptism?
Were Enoch or Elijah baptized? What Happened to them?
I guess I got my answer lol
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< FACT: There’s more scientific evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, then there is for any of the gods, that includes yours. >>>[/quote]Sparky I would love to get you goin here since I promised Joab I would not disrupt his thread like I always do. FACT: the scientific method itself is unintelligible without the God of Christianity. I can hear you already and I even sorta grant you the point on one level, but I am advancing the topic of this thread as the key to everything. It is. Even ultimately to your walls of paste jobs in the Hitchens thread.
Kamui would say that Trib is right again except that the non contingent all governing entity responsible for this FACT is an abstract principle or non personal intellect. I wish I could get him to talk about that more actually. I respect Kamui alot. I don’t think he’s afraid to debate. I think he is a non confrontational person. I stand by my assertion that he is staring the risen Christ right in the face.
The image of God his creator has led him right into the throne room but he cannot see it. I am pleading on my knees before my Lord as I point at Kamui. Dear merciful Father God, the man is standing right THERE!!! PLEASE open his eyes. He is however the King and I am not.
I’d like to hear kamui finish the conversation that was just getting started here as well. I was riveted and then the whole thread got massively sidetracked.
[quote]
Kamui would say that Trib is right again except that the non contingent all governing entity responsible for this FACT is an abstract principle or non personal intellect. I wish I could get him to talk about that more actually.[/quote]
A non personal intellect : yes
An abstract principle : no
This “non contingent entity” is a very real power and very concrete power. It’s the source of the tangible order that exist in the world and in our minds.
[quote]
The image of God his creator has led him right into the throne room but he cannot see it. I am pleading on my knees before my Lord as I point at Kamui. Dear merciful Father God, the man is standing right THERE!!! PLEASE open his eyes. He is however the King and I am not. [/quote]
What prevent me to see Him, in your opinion ?
[quote]kamui wrote:<<< A non personal intellect : yes >>>[/quote]Could you define “personal” and “intellect” please. What is the difference in your view.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< An abstract principle : no >>>[/quote]My mistake.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< This “non contingent entity” is a very real power and very concrete power. It’s the source of the tangible order that exist in the world and in our minds. >>>[/quote]I think I know what you’re going say here, but going along with the theme of this thread, how do you know this power is what you believe? Honest question.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< What prevent me to see Him, in your opinion ?[/quote]Ephesians chapter 2:1-3 This is the apostle Paul writing to the “saints who were at Ephesus”. A gentile city in which he preached the gospel and won converts. This book is a combination of mind numbing theology and practical teaching about how to live the Christian life. [quote]1-And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2-in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3-Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. >>>[/quote]In short, sin. Not that you are especially evil compared to others or that you are as bad as you could be or that you cannot do anything “good”. It doesn’t mean any of those things. It means that you are unwilling to acknowledge a God who would require you to live your life for Him instead of yourself unless He agreed with how YOU wanted to live your life already. I hasten to add that this goes for me too. And everyone else. You are not being singled out for criticism. Either by me or God.
I’ll try to keep my posts to a manageable 300,000 words or less. There is a passage reporting Paul’s sermon to the Greeks on Mars Hill in the 17th chapter of the acts of the apostles that is right in line with what is going on here with you in my view. This is enough for one post though.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
Kamui would say that Trib is right again except that the non contingent all governing entity responsible for this FACT is an abstract principle or non personal intellect. I wish I could get him to talk about that more actually.[/quote]
A non personal intellect : yes
An abstract principle : no
This “non contingent entity” is a very real power and very concrete power. It’s the source of the tangible order that exist in the world and in our minds.
[quote]
The image of God his creator has led him right into the throne room but he cannot see it. I am pleading on my knees before my Lord as I point at Kamui. Dear merciful Father God, the man is standing right THERE!!! PLEASE open his eyes. He is however the King and I am not. [/quote]
What prevent me to see Him, in your opinion ?[/quote]
Could you break down ‘non-contigent entity’ for me. Lol, I feel like I’m taking liberal arts classes again (I’m a science grad student so I don’t take those anymore at school).
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Could you break down ‘non-contigent entity’ for me. Lol, I feel like I’m taking liberal arts classes again (I’m a science grad student so I don’t take those anymore at school). [/quote]Here’s mine while your waiting on his. He would agree with much of the formality of conceptual content here, but not on who or what this is written to describe. If that makes sense.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< Could you break down ‘non-contigent entity’ for me. Lol, I feel like I’m taking liberal arts classes again (I’m a science grad student so I don’t take those anymore at school). [/quote]Here’s mine while your waiting on his. He would agree with much of the formality of conceptual content here, but not on who or what this is written to describe. If that makes sense.
[/quote]
I think I get it now. Interesting way of answering. Which bible translation is that and what’s the book and verse if you know off hand. I think I might get it a little better with different translations.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote: I think I get it now. Interesting way of answering. Which bible translation is that and what’s the book and verse if you know off hand. I think I might get it a little better with different translations. [/quote]It’s not the bible at all actually =] No problem though. It’s a confession which means simply a statement of faith concerning what the bible teaches according to a large number of men who in my view in this case were very substantially correct. It’s from 365 years ago. 301 redirect
Like I say Kamui will agree in form only though even that is significant. He does not believe in the God of that confession. He’ll give you his answer better than I can.
Here, I modernized it a bit for you.
Interesting quote.
let’s break it 
I agree. And i would add that it has NOT death, infamy and evil in itself.
Because, strictly speaking, these things doesn’t exist, they have no positive definition (they are a “lack of” something : lack of glory, lack of life, lack of goodness, etc).
Yep. It’s the very definition of being non contingent.
[quote]
he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things;[/quote]
Yep. All contingent things, all contingent events ultimately and necessarily come from this non contingent being.
[quote]
and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth.[/quote]
I can accept this formulation if and only if we interpret the words “dominion” and “whatsoever himself pleaseth” as metaphorical.
The anthropomorphic projection i reject start right there.
[quote]
In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.[/quote]
The non-contingent being is the actual foundation of all potential knowledge. If we are able to know anything, it’s only because this non-contingent being is (at least partially) intelligible.
[quote]
He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.[/quote]
“Counsels”, “works” and “commands” are, again, anthropomorphic in my eyes.
It’s certainly true, but in a metaphorical way.
For the same reason, i won’t say that any “service” are due to it nor that it “requires” anything from us.
But i would say that ignoring “him” is plainly vain.
And yes, we should worship it. ie : ritually acknowledging that it lies beyond us.