Tirib and Sloth,
What type of legislation do you feel needs to be enacted to remedy this downturn that you think we are experiencing?
I don’t feel that legislation is effective at fixing this problem because the root of the problem lies at the people themselves, it can only be remedy by a change of heart in our society.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I don’t feel that legislation is effective at fixing this problem because the root of the problem lies at the people themselves, it can only be remedy by a change of heart in our society.[/quote]
Absolutely true. It cannot be done by force. It is precisely the voluntary nature of this early Judeo-Christian morality that made the United States even possible with it’s principles of limited government and it’s the loss of that private morality that is making it now impossible.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mak, you never disappoint. I’ll say that much.
[/quote]
I do what I must.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So I know the Bible is true, because I tested it . . . Have you personally tested it or are you just parroting what someone else has stated . . . who’s being intellectually dishonest now?
[/quote]
ROFLMMFAO!!!
Prove there is a dome above the earth, holding up water, that the sun and moon are set into. Right now.[/quote]
Why would I want to prove your silly statement true - it’s not a bible verse . . . . LMAO![/quote]
I’m going to start calling you Assless.
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
…but you already knew this because you’ve extensively studied the historical accuracy of every word in the bible (nevermind that such a task would take several lifetimes to complete).
So, yeah. Firmament. Waters above, waters below, yeah?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…what for? I haven’t done anything wrong…
[/quote]
The only unforgivable sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The rest you won’t be punished for if you do not commit that one.[/quote]
…is that sin saying goddammit? [/quote]
No, that is not the sin. “God damn it” is merely cursing something (whatever it is), but can be used in vain (or just saying it for no reason) is a no-no. However that is not the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is denying that the Godhead is truth, not because of ignorance (not having proof or not seeing it), but seeing truth and knowing it is truth, yet rejecting it.[/quote]
…aha. So, i reject the godhead as truth, altough i haven’t seen it’s truth, so i don’t know it’s truth. But i’ve been baptised and had my cathecism [sp?] in the Roman Catholic church though. Where does that leave me [in theory ofcourse]?
[/quote]
So you had baptism and were confirmed or just received your First Eucharist? When was this and why did you do this?
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’m sorry but this is a crock of shit. So there is a conspiracy of preachers to get people to feel as if the spirit has descended upon them?
So we just came up with discernment, and understanding when the spirit is actually with you and when it is just feelings, because we are trying to trick people? Interesting.
And what is that purpose? So they can have more people sit in church on Sunday? So they can have more socials? So people will pray more decades, light more candles, or be more devout? Join an Order? Give more to Charity? Join a Fraternity?[/quote]
Not a conspiracy, at least not a conscious one. As I said, I don’t totally agree with the God virus idea, but many religious traditions get passed down because they “work,” but for the reasons religion says they work. Take prayer, for example. Take a person who is late for work and is frantically searching for his car keys. He decides to take a moment and pray for God to help him find his car keys. Within seconds after saying the prayer, he finds his car keys. Did praying work? Yes, and here’s why. When he was frantically searching for his keys, his body was in stress mode which prevented clear thinking and even clear vision. The keys could have been right in front of him but he missed them simply because his brain was not properly processing visual input. Prayer functions much like meditation - it calmed him down, slowed down his thinking, and allowed him to see the keys. Praying worked! He then goes and tells everyone how prayer worked. Others try it in similar situations, and it works too! So now the word is spread that praying works. But it is not because of divine intervention but because of a combined physiological/psychological response.
In school I used to pray before tests all the time. And yes, it “worked.”[/quote]
Well, I would tell you a little something about prayer that would debunk anything that you just said, but I won’t just yet because 1) it is irrelevant to G-d being true or not and 2) I do not need it used against me while in an argument, even though it would not affect the actual argument, some people might think using it will prove a point.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Please tell me why you think that atheists/agnostics/non-believers want to kill anybody
[/quote]
See, to suggest mental abuse by our clerics, and then our own mental abuse of our children with the ‘mental virus,’ justifies police intervention. Hey, I’m all for social services removing children, even jailing parents that ‘brainwash’ and ‘mentally abuse’ children. So now, if that’s what our faith is, then the atheist is morally obligated to have our children removed and us jailed/committed. They’d be monsters not to.
However, the language of New Atheism is even harsher. Sheeple. Brain-washed brain-washers. Deluded. Child abusers. The non-brights. Virus carriers…Pretty much all the dehumanizing stuff you’d expect before the pogroms start up.
Though, I almost look forward to being rebelliously counter-culture (Christian), part of the underground resistance. Maybe it’d get trendy, and teen pop stars would be deemed risque for REFUSING to act out a lesbian kiss on stage. You never know.
[/quote]
You’ve managed to over-react. This was merely one psychologist who proposed this idea - it is by no means well-accepted. Even I question it. And you conveniently left out the portion of my post where I talk about liking law and order. We still have the First Amendment and everyone is free to believe whatever nonsense they wish to believe and to pass this on to their children. As far as I’m concerned, you can home-school your kids and teach the creation story as science. But just don’t complain when colleges reject their application due to a deficient science curriculum.
Underground resistance? Please. It’s the atheists and agnostics who need to hide. As for the lesbian kiss thing, at least I can enjoy girl on girl action without fear of punishment from some invisible police force.
[/quote]
Well obviously (e.g. in the United States) Law and Order can get out of hand, that’s why I like to stick to Truth and Justice. Second, if Sloth home schooled his kids (as well as me), I doubt we would teach the creationism (I am presuming that is what you mean by creation story), as the Catholic Church stands next to Evolution, I mean one of our own did first suggest it.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
BTW, as long as we’re talking about debauchery, what was it that influenced all those priests to molest children?[/quote]
Bad time for the Church, however I think the reason why so many people associate the Church with that is because we are a giant of sorts. If you look at the statistics only 3% of sexual abuse cases are from religious people (i.e. clerics), and only a fraction of that percentage are the Church.
And, not stringent enough Church acceptance, not stringent enough scrutiny of the person’s psychology, and past.
That is starting to change now, I have forms for three different seminaries sitting on my desk, one is 160 p., 220 p. and the other is 205 p. I have to fill out half those forms, then take a psychology examination (several of them), as well as a list of other things that I have to do. Then I have 4-4.5 years while in seminary to decide if I want to be a Priest. If I do not pass the first part, I can join the seminary but not the Priest hood. Oh yeah, and the Vatican is now more like the military in the background checks.
I have had a few Priests from different seminaries call my phone/come to my house to talk to me about some of my friends who are going into the Priesthood.
I heard a joke from a Priest at a seminary (pertaining to his school at least), even if you pass a background check to join the FBI, you still doesn’t mean you can make it into the Priesthood.
The problem, I think, is just the culture of the World, mixed with different other stuff that led to this lack of prudence in allowing people into the Priesthood.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…what for? I haven’t done anything wrong…
[/quote]
The only unforgivable sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The rest you won’t be punished for if you do not commit that one.[/quote]
…is that sin saying goddammit? [/quote]
No, that is not the sin. “God damn it” is merely cursing something (whatever it is), but can be used in vain (or just saying it for no reason) is a no-no. However that is not the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is denying that the Godhead is truth, not because of ignorance (not having proof or not seeing it), but seeing truth and knowing it is truth, yet rejecting it.[/quote]
…aha. So, i reject the godhead as truth, altough i haven’t seen it’s truth, so i don’t know it’s truth. But i’ve been baptised and had my cathecism [sp?] in the Roman Catholic church though. Where does that leave me [in theory ofcourse]?
[/quote]
So you had baptism and were confirmed or just received your First Eucharist? When was this and why did you do this?
[/quote]
…actually, now that i think about it; i was baptised as a baby and had my communion when i was 8 or so. When i was 12 kids went for their confirmation; this happened at other peoples houses. Even my parents held such gettogethers eventhough they weren’t religious at all. I didn’t go through with my confirmation because i didn’t see the point…
…this was a 30 odd years ago, and i did it because i didn’t know any better, and i didn’t know what it all meant. I even was an altarboy a couple of times, but because it was really boring i simply stopped going. Since then they only times i ever went back to church was because of a funeral…
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You talks as if society is made up of isolated individuals, each living in isolated moments of time, and each within their own impermeable bubble.[/quote]
Of course society and pop culture influence people. But you don’t counteract that by overprotection and censorship. I grew up with overprotective, fairly conservative Catholic parents. Guess what - I still learned about sex (and it wasn’t in a school sex ed class it was from my friends), saw porn, and could have had access to drugs if I wanted to use.
Half the fun of watching porn with my friends was that I was doing it behind my parents’ back and getting away with it. I’ve heard several stories from guys who went away to Bible camp and some of the girls were giving it away right and left. Teenagers are going to find ways of getting away with stuff - that’s just reality. Make something “forbidden” and it’s just that much more fun to do.
The way you inoculate kids from bad influences is teach them to think critically and to think for themselves. This does create somewhat of a “bubble.” I could give a shit what other people think about me. I have my own ideas and opinions.
No, I’m not perplexed at all. My point is that I seriously doubt that watching two women kiss on television was the sole and proximate cause of her deciding to do what she did. But even if it was the sole cause, how many thousands of girls witnessed the same thing who didn’t go out and dress like whores?
[quote]Easy. Pedophiles, and homosexuals looking for twinks, sought out and abused a high trust position. They do it schools and day care, too. But, never fear! The weeding out process for homosexuals and such has been ratcheted up. Betcha such incidents, in the future, will be as rare as reproducing atheists. That’s the part anti-Catholics aren’t looking forward too.
[/quote]
Your point was that outside influences cause immoral behavior. Here you’re suggesting that these priests were already pre-disposed to being pedophiles. And that’s my point. That 17-year-old girl who dressed like a whore probably had some issues before she saw two women kissing.
Seeing the two women kissing may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but any other trigger could have prompted the same behavior. How do I know? Because of the thousands of other girls who saw the same thing and did nothing.
BTW - The only example of a victimless crime (if it even is a crime) that I used was a teenage boy rubbing one out in private. Not public, not in front of his friends, but in his own room. Please tell me who the victim of that crime is.[/quote]
This is why I am all for Justice system of the OT, if a man sleeps with a woman before she is married, he automatically (through force of the community) has to marry her and support her.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is why I am all for Justice system of the OT, if a man sleeps with a woman before she is married, he automatically (through force of the community) has to marry her and support her.[/quote]
…like this?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…aha. So, i reject the godhead as truth, altough i haven’t seen it’s truth, so i don’t know it’s truth. But i’ve been baptised and had my cathecism [sp?] in the Roman Catholic church though. Where does that leave me [in theory ofcourse]?
[/quote]
So you had baptism and were confirmed or just received your First Eucharist? When was this and why did you do this?
[/quote]
…actually, now that i think about it; i was baptised as a baby and had my communion when i was 8 or so. When i was 12 kids went for their confirmation; this happened at other peoples houses. Even my parents held such gettogethers eventhough they weren’t religious at all. I didn’t go through with my confirmation because i didn’t see the point…
…this was a 30 odd years ago, and i did it because i didn’t know any better, and i didn’t know what it all meant. I even was an altarboy a couple of times, but because it was really boring i simply stopped going. Since then they only times i ever went back to church was because of a funeral…
[/quote]
Well, even though some of my Protestant brothers might disagree with me. You only get one Baptism, but theoretically if you haven’t known Jesus to be the truth (and supposing your lack of culpability at age 8), you can’t blasphemy the Holy Ghost, if you really didn’t know the Truth.
Baltimore Catechism Q352:
What is forbidden by the Second Commandment?
A. The Second Commandment forbids all false, rash, unjust, and
unnecessary oaths, blasphemy, cursing, and profane words.
“Rash”–swearing a thing is true or false without knowing for certain
whether it is or not. “Blasphemy” is not the same as cursing or taking
God’s name in vain. It is worse. It is to say or do something very
disrespectful to God. To say that He is unjust, cruel or the like, is to
blaspheme. We can blaspheme also by actions. To defy God by a sign or
action, to dare Him to strike us dead, etc., would be blasphemy. We have
a terrible example of blasphemy related in the life of Julian the
Apostate. An apostate is one who renounces and gives up his religion,
not one who merely neglects it. Julian was a Roman emperor and had been
a Catholic, but apostatized. Then in his great hatred for Our Lord he
wished to falsify His prophecies and prove them untrue. Our Lord had
said that of the temple of Jerusalem there would not be left a stone
upon a stone. To make this false Julian began to rebuild the temple. In
making the preparation he cleared away the ruins of the old building,
not leaving a single stone upon a stone, and thus was instrumental
himself in verifying the words of Our Lord; for while the ruins remained
there were stones upon stones. He wished to defy God, but when he began
to build, fire came forth from the earth and drove back the workmen, and
a strong wind scattered the materials. Afterwards Julian was wounded in
battle, an arrow having pierced his breast. He drew it out, and throwing
a handful of his blood toward heaven, said: “Thou hast conquered, O
Galilean,” meaning Our Lord. This was a horrible blasphemy–throwing his
blood in defiance, and calling the Son of God a name which he thought
would be insulting (see Fredet’s Modern History, Life of Julian).
Therefore we can blaspheme by actions or words, doing or saying things
intended to insult Almighty God. “Profane words”–that is, bad, but
especially irreverent and irreligious words.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…aha. So, i reject the godhead as truth, altough i haven’t seen it’s truth, so i don’t know it’s truth. But i’ve been baptised and had my cathecism [sp?] in the Roman Catholic church though. Where does that leave me [in theory ofcourse]?
[/quote]
So you had baptism and were confirmed or just received your First Eucharist? When was this and why did you do this?
[/quote]
…actually, now that i think about it; i was baptised as a baby and had my communion when i was 8 or so. When i was 12 kids went for their confirmation; this happened at other peoples houses. Even my parents held such gettogethers eventhough they weren’t religious at all. I didn’t go through with my confirmation because i didn’t see the point…
…this was a 30 odd years ago, and i did it because i didn’t know any better, and i didn’t know what it all meant. I even was an altarboy a couple of times, but because it was really boring i simply stopped going. Since then they only times i ever went back to church was because of a funeral…
[/quote]
Well, even though some of my Protestant brothers might disagree with me. You only get one Baptism, but theoretically if you haven’t known Jesus to be the truth (and supposing your lack of culpability at age 8), you can’t blasphemy the Holy Ghost, if you really didn’t know the Truth.
Baltimore Catechism Q352:
What is forbidden by the Second Commandment?
A. The Second Commandment forbids all false, rash, unjust, and
unnecessary oaths, blasphemy, cursing, and profane words.
“Rash”–swearing a thing is true or false without knowing for certain
whether it is or not. “Blasphemy” is not the same as cursing or taking
God’s name in vain. It is worse. It is to say or do something very
disrespectful to God. To say that He is unjust, cruel or the like, is to
blaspheme. We can blaspheme also by actions. To defy God by a sign or
action, to dare Him to strike us dead, etc., would be blasphemy. We have
a terrible example of blasphemy related in the life of Julian the
Apostate. An apostate is one who renounces and gives up his religion,
not one who merely neglects it. Julian was a Roman emperor and had been
a Catholic, but apostatized. Then in his great hatred for Our Lord he
wished to falsify His prophecies and prove them untrue. Our Lord had
said that of the temple of Jerusalem there would not be left a stone
upon a stone. To make this false Julian began to rebuild the temple. In
making the preparation he cleared away the ruins of the old building,
not leaving a single stone upon a stone, and thus was instrumental
himself in verifying the words of Our Lord; for while the ruins remained
there were stones upon stones. He wished to defy God, but when he began
to build, fire came forth from the earth and drove back the workmen, and
a strong wind scattered the materials. Afterwards Julian was wounded in
battle, an arrow having pierced his breast. He drew it out, and throwing
a handful of his blood toward heaven, said: “Thou hast conquered, O
Galilean,” meaning Our Lord. This was a horrible blasphemy–throwing his
blood in defiance, and calling the Son of God a name which he thought
would be insulting (see Fredet’s Modern History, Life of Julian).
Therefore we can blaspheme by actions or words, doing or saying things
intended to insult Almighty God. “Profane words”–that is, bad, but
especially irreverent and irreligious words.
[/quote]
…what’s the difference between not knowing the truth, and not believing this truth is truth at all?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is why I am all for Justice system of the OT, if a man sleeps with a woman before she is married, he automatically (through force of the community) has to marry her and support her.[/quote]
…like this?[/quote]
That is a hilarious. No, I am not a violent man, there are other ways to service justice. Dude is completely out of it, I think they drugged him too. But the Indian music got to me, so I had to stop watching.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…aha. So, i reject the godhead as truth, altough i haven’t seen it’s truth, so i don’t know it’s truth. But i’ve been baptised and had my cathecism [sp?] in the Roman Catholic church though. Where does that leave me [in theory ofcourse]?
[/quote]
So you had baptism and were confirmed or just received your First Eucharist? When was this and why did you do this?
[/quote]
…actually, now that i think about it; i was baptised as a baby and had my communion when i was 8 or so. When i was 12 kids went for their confirmation; this happened at other peoples houses. Even my parents held such gettogethers eventhough they weren’t religious at all. I didn’t go through with my confirmation because i didn’t see the point…
…this was a 30 odd years ago, and i did it because i didn’t know any better, and i didn’t know what it all meant. I even was an altarboy a couple of times, but because it was really boring i simply stopped going. Since then they only times i ever went back to church was because of a funeral…
[/quote]
Well, even though some of my Protestant brothers might disagree with me. You only get one Baptism, but theoretically if you haven’t known Jesus to be the truth (and supposing your lack of culpability at age 8), you can’t blasphemy the Holy Ghost, if you really didn’t know the Truth.
Baltimore Catechism Q352:
What is forbidden by the Second Commandment?
A. The Second Commandment forbids all false, rash, unjust, and
unnecessary oaths, blasphemy, cursing, and profane words.
“Rash”–swearing a thing is true or false without knowing for certain
whether it is or not. “Blasphemy” is not the same as cursing or taking
God’s name in vain. It is worse. It is to say or do something very
disrespectful to God. To say that He is unjust, cruel or the like, is to
blaspheme. We can blaspheme also by actions. To defy God by a sign or
action, to dare Him to strike us dead, etc., would be blasphemy. We have
a terrible example of blasphemy related in the life of Julian the
Apostate. An apostate is one who renounces and gives up his religion,
not one who merely neglects it. Julian was a Roman emperor and had been
a Catholic, but apostatized. Then in his great hatred for Our Lord he
wished to falsify His prophecies and prove them untrue. Our Lord had
said that of the temple of Jerusalem there would not be left a stone
upon a stone. To make this false Julian began to rebuild the temple. In
making the preparation he cleared away the ruins of the old building,
not leaving a single stone upon a stone, and thus was instrumental
himself in verifying the words of Our Lord; for while the ruins remained
there were stones upon stones. He wished to defy God, but when he began
to build, fire came forth from the earth and drove back the workmen, and
a strong wind scattered the materials. Afterwards Julian was wounded in
battle, an arrow having pierced his breast. He drew it out, and throwing
a handful of his blood toward heaven, said: “Thou hast conquered, O
Galilean,” meaning Our Lord. This was a horrible blasphemy–throwing his
blood in defiance, and calling the Son of God a name which he thought
would be insulting (see Fredet’s Modern History, Life of Julian).
Therefore we can blaspheme by actions or words, doing or saying things
intended to insult Almighty God. “Profane words”–that is, bad, but
especially irreverent and irreligious words.
[/quote]
…what’s the difference between not knowing the truth, and not believing this truth is truth at all?
[/quote]
Not knowing the truth, is that out of ignorance you do not know the truth (not that you are stupid), not believing this truth is truth at all, if I am comprehending correctly, that you are not ignorant of the truth, and you know what is Holy, but you deny it’s due anyway.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…what’s the difference between not knowing the truth, and not believing this truth is truth at all?
[/quote]
Not knowing the truth, is that out of ignorance you do not know the truth (not that you are stupid), not believing this truth is truth at all, if I am comprehending correctly, that you are not ignorant of the truth, and you know what is Holy, but you deny it’s due anyway.[/quote]
…what does the Catholic Church say is the Truth? Let’s not beat around the bush here: whatever the truth is, i’ll deny its due by not believing it’s truth at all…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is why I am all for Justice system of the OT, if a man sleeps with a woman before she is married, he automatically (through force of the community) has to marry her and support her.[/quote]
…like this?[/quote]
That is a hilarious. No, I am not a violent man, there are other ways to service justice. Dude is completely out of it, I think they drugged him too. But the Indian music got to me, so I had to stop watching.[/quote]
…but it’s the same kind of justice you propose, isn’t it?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So I know the Bible is true, because I tested it . . . Have you personally tested it or are you just parroting what someone else has stated . . . who’s being intellectually dishonest now?
[/quote]
ROFLMMFAO!!!
Prove there is a dome above the earth, holding up water, that the sun and moon are set into. Right now.[/quote]
Why would I want to prove your silly statement true - it’s not a bible verse . . . . LMAO![/quote]
I’m going to start calling you Assless.
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
…but you already knew this because you’ve extensively studied the historical accuracy of every word in the bible (nevermind that such a task would take several lifetimes to complete).
So, yeah. Firmament. Waters above, waters below, yeah?[/quote]
did you see anything there talking about a dome? nope . . . didn’t think so - so your first statement is not a bible verse as I indicated . . . so you proved yourself wrong . . . now I will finish the job.
The verse that you quote says (literally in hebrew - translated without addition)
“Said God let there be an expanse the midst of the water become separate among the water the water. Made God the expanse and separated among the water which under the expanse from the water which above the expanse, and it was so. Called God the expanse heaven and there was evening and there was morning day a second.”
if you will look at the verse in context, God is working with the universe - the earth is as of yet unformed. He had already plainly stated in the preceding verses that the earth was void and without form - ie, did not yet exist. He first made light, and then he made the expanse of the universe. This verse is the very creation of the planet.
The word picture is of a great cosmic soup (the word water is figuratively used for juice) and he is dividing up this soup into specific planets. He does not say what he is doing with the rest of the water, but the implication is that he is using it to create the other planets of the universe, but since the focus here is on earth, he is creating the form of the plant from the substance of the universe. This is held true because in the next verses, he divides the oceans from the land forming the first continent.
The earth starts out void/without form - part of the cosmic “waters”, God divides a portion off for the substance and form of the earth and creates the planet. Basically the same accretion process as described by evolutionists in planetary formation except with the direct guided hand and purpose of God actively creating the planet. Seems pretty accurate scientifically to me . . . the earth is made of the same substance as the rest of the planets and the space dividing up the universe is called heaven . . .
Your entire criticism is based off of a poor reading of an English translation . . …
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…what’s the difference between not knowing the truth, and not believing this truth is truth at all?
[/quote]
Not knowing the truth, is that out of ignorance you do not know the truth (not that you are stupid), not believing this truth is truth at all, if I am comprehending correctly, that you are not ignorant of the truth, and you know what is Holy, but you deny it’s due anyway.[/quote]
…what does the Catholic Church say is the Truth? Let’s not beat around the bush here: whatever the truth is, i’ll deny its due by not believing it’s truth at all…[/quote]
So you just haven’t in your life seen that Jesus is the Truth?
What is the Truth? Oh jeeze, Bible + Doctrine + Revelation + I’m not sure what else actually. Just those three.