We Need Another Christianity Thread

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes. >>>[/quote]As soon as you can tell me why YOU are certain that 2+2=4, something else you say may actually have some meaningful content. I really miss Elder Forlife. WHERE ARE YA MAN?!?!?!?! These people need yer help. Even I didn’t realize how good he really is. He should found an international school for skeptics. Nobody I’ve ever known has been more right while being more wrong than him. I honestly do not mean this as an insult my sweet, but you are waaay behind.
[/quote]

Men smarter than us have looked at the logical underpinning of numbers. You refuse to look at their work, you claim to have an answer that you cling to to assuage your fear of the unknown. And your arrogance and presumption is overwhelming.[/quote]

What, he has a point.

Mathematics is a lot like religion in that it is axiomatic and that a lot of surprising things can be deducted from those axioms.

Where it falls flat on its face though is that we know that we flat out made up mathematics, I doubt that he would draw the necessary conclusion. [/quote]

True. However, mathematic’s roots are based on counting things, hence where the numbers and symbols received their definition. All else that’s arisen aside, we know the basic 2+2=4 because we can count two apples twice, put them in a row, and count to four. Two write this, we made up the conventions. That happened long before mathematicians came along who could write a “proof” for it. If 2+2 did not equal 4, one of the descriptors wouldn’t be useful.

Math has obviously gone far past being a descriptor of the physical world, but that was it’s original use and if it didn’t satisfactorily work for that, it wouldn’t exist in the form it does.

I know that’s a far simpler definition than what this conversation was going for, but there is not need to take it farther than that.[/quote]

Counting things.

You mean the “things” that we experience as things with a limited sensory equipment and bundle arbitrarily into “things”?

Those “things”.

That you could say “two apples” and I would know what you mean is swell, but it does say more about you and me than about objective reality.

What mathematics does is supplying us with a very precise terminology, not unrelated to everyday experience, the same can be said about theology. [/quote]

I like where you’re taking this. Carry on.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

sinful (praying to the Virgin).

[/quote]

I believe it goes something like this:

The Annunciation
The relationship between the Holy Trinity and Mary is alluded to in Scripture. The account of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke suggests how the Trinity is involved in the conception and birth of Jesus Christ.

The Angel Gabriel said to Mary, â??The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High [the Father] will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born [from you] will be called holy, the Son of Godâ??. (Luke 1:35, RSV CE, emphasis added)

The coming upon Mary is the Holy Spirit, acting to bring the humanity of the Son into being in the womb of Mary. The overshadowing of Mary is the Father, willing the Incarnation through providentially directing everything to this event as the purpose and goal of creation. The birth from Mary is the Son â??taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of menâ?? humbling Himself and â??becoming obedient unto death â?¦ on a crossâ??. (Philippians 2:7-8) The child that is born of Mary is called holy, not only because He is consecrated to God but also because He is God in the flesh.

Grace, Love, Fellowship
How can devotion to Mary encourage a lively sense of the Trinity? Let us look at perhaps the most beautiful passage about the Trinity in Scripture.

In the conclusion of his Second Letter to the Corinthians, Paul expresses his heartfelt wish that his readers remain within the beneficent activities of the Holy Trinity: â??The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you allâ??. (II Corinthians 13:14, RSV CE, emphasis added)

This verse could really be a summary of Christianity in a nutshell and the sum total of its message. What news could be better, if it is really true that the Holy Trinity exists, than the news that the Lord Jesus Christ is grace for us and with us, God is love ahead of us and toward us, and the Holy Spirit is fellowship with us and in us?

Let us look more closely at this impressive verse.

The first and the third phrases of II Corinthians 13:13, â??the grace of the Lord Jesus Christâ??, and â??the fellowship of the Holy Spiritâ??, are exactly parallel in structure to its second phrase, â??the love of Godâ??. This parallel and balance of the three phrases suggest that the names, â??the Lord Jesus Christâ?? and â??the Holy Spiritâ?? refer to the divine reality as much as â??Godâ?? does in the middle phrase. Also, â??Jesusâ?? is called â??Lordâ?? and â??the Spiritâ?? is called â??Holyâ??; it so happens that both â??lordshipâ?? and â??holinessâ?? are qualities that belong most properly to God. The parallel and balanced structure of the phrases, and their vocabulary, indicate that God is the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as well as God the Father â?? therefore, God is the Holy Trinity.

The same characteristics of these phrases also indicate that God relates to us through the personal modes of grace, love, and fellowship, and therefore, they are the threefold or â??triuneâ?? relationship of God to us.

Both the Trinity of divine Persons and their triune relationship of grace, love, and fellowship in II Cor. 13:14 could more easily be understood if we correlate the two â??sets of threeâ?? with the three great articles of the Nicene Creed.

The Lord Jesus Christ is â??the only Son of Godâ??, and His grace is becoming man, dying, and rising for us, according to the second article of the Creed.

This grace is incarnate because the favor and divine gifts that the Son gives to us come only through the Son becoming flesh as Jesus and dying and rising in His humanity. God is â??the Father, the Almightyâ??, and His love is creating us and â??all that is, seen and unseenâ??, according to the first article of the Creed.

The work of creating is love â?? because God as the Trinity needs nothing. God is complete as the three Persons in their eternal relation with each other. God creates, not to benefit Himself, but to benefit what and who He has created. This love is providential because He creates, directs His creation, and accomplishes all His plans for creation out of the love He has had since before the foundation of the world.

The Holy Spirit is â??the Lord, the giver of lifeâ??, and His fellowship is filling the Church so that through it He forgives sins, raises our bodies, and brings us to life everlasting, according to the third article of the Nicene Creed. This fellowship is poured out and overflowing because the Spirit descends upon us, inspires us, and dwells within us.

Mary â?? a Sign
Because of Maryâ??s role in the life of Jesus, she receives the extraordinary gifts of freedom from sin, virginal motherhood, and union of her body and soul in heaven. These gifts are special signs that the providential love of the Father, the incarnate grace of Jesus Christ, and the outpoured fellowship of the Holy Spirit are realities that are meant for all those called by God to be His own.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a sign that the Father from His providential love has chosen and elected Mary to eternal life in a greater manner than any other human creature. The Father shows through this privilege given to Mary that sin was in no way part of His original intent in creation and that His original intention will be fulfilled in heaven where eternal life will be completely free from sin, suffering, and death.

The Motherhood of Mary is a sign that the Son through His incarnate grace has given her an intimacy with His being and mission in a greater manner than to any other human being. Through this privilege given to Mary, the Son shows that He, as the man Jesus, is the original reason, purpose, and goal of creation, and we are created to grow in the likeness of Christ as well as to be redeemed by Him.

The Assumption of Mary is a sign that the Spirit in His outpoured fellowship has shared the life of the world to come with Mary in a greater manner than any with other human being. The Spirit shows through this privilege given to Mary that all things that are divided, separated, and in conflict â?? especially symbolized by the separation of body and soul in death â?? are reconciled, united, and resolved in the incomparable peace of eternal life.

Mary is not only the recipient of extraordinary gifts from the Trinity; she is also a giver of extraordinary gifts from them. There is no greater love after the Fatherâ??s providential love than Maryâ??s loving nurture of those called to be His adopted children. There is no greater grace after the Sonâ??s incarnate grace than Maryâ??s gift of herself to those called to be the brothers and sisters of Jesus. There is no greater fellowship after the Spiritâ??s outpoured fellowship than Mary sharing her life and the riches of divine life intimately with those who are called to be friends and even â??spousesâ?? of the Spirit.

Mary â?? â??The excellent masterpiece of the Most Highâ??
This explanation of the Trinityâ??s relationship with Mary through the use of the verse from Second Corinthians dovetails with the explanation that Saint Louis de Montfort, a great apostle of Mary, gives of the same relationship in his True Devotion to Mary. He says Mary is â??the excellent masterpiece of the Most Highâ?? since the Father imparted to Mary His fruitfulness in order to enable her to bring forth His only Son into the world.

As a consequence, we may say, the Father wills that Mary be the spiritual mother who brings forth His adopted children through her nurturing influence until the end of time. She is â??the admirable Mother of the Sonâ??, since the Son became incarnate â?? was made flesh â?? through Mary and in Mary. As a result, the Son gives Himself to His spiritual brothers and sisters through His mother; and in a manner of speaking, through her will become incarnate for them as their Eucharistic food, and in them as an ever-greater likeness to Himself.

Finally, Mary is â??the faithful spouse of the Holy Spiritâ?? since the Spirit formed Jesus Christ within Maryâ??s womb, and remained with her in raising the child Jesus. It follows, then, that the Holy Spirit wills to fashion Jesus in His chosen ones and unite them to God by giving all of His gifts in and through Mary. As Saint Louis de Monfort wrote: â??Mary is the sanctuary and the repose of the Holy Trinity, where God dwells more magnificently and more divinely than in any other place in the universeâ??. (This quote, and his titles for Mary are from â??Preliminary Remarksâ?? in True Devotion, Father Faber edition.)

Ave Maria
A way to take to heart these reflections is to recall the Trinityâ??s relationship with Mary when we pray the â??Hail Maryâ??. Two sets of three phrases in the prayer could act as mental hooks for our attention to this relationship.

The set of phrases: â??full of graceâ??; â??the Lord is with theeâ??; and â??blessed art thou among womenâ??.

The first phrase is links to the Holy Spirit, since His indwelling in Mary â?? His fellowship with her from the moment of her conception to her queenship in heaven â?? is the chief reason she is â??full of graceâ??.

The second phrase links to Jesus the Son, since His grace is His physical presence in Maryâ??s womb, His spiritual presence in her mission in the world, and His supreme presence to her in heaven â?? all of which indicate that truly â??the Lord is withâ?? Mary.

The third phrase recalls us to God the Father, since His love is the source, above all, of Mary being â??blessed â?¦ among womenâ?? for bearing the Son of God who has become man.

The second set of three phrases: â??blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesusâ??, â??holy Maryâ??, and â??Mother of Godâ??.

The first phrase of this second set is a another hook for God the Father, since His love is the chief reason Mary is fruitful in this extraordinary way; she has brought into the world the Fatherâ??s supreme blessing to us and the clearest proof of His love: His Son and our Savior.

The second phrase again recalls the Holy Spirit since Mary is â??holyâ?? because of the singular fellowship of the indwelling Spirit with her from the moment of her conception; she is also â??holyâ?? because she furthers our fellowship with the Spirit by giving His gifts to us.

The last phrase also links to Jesus the Son since Mary is the â??Mother of Godâ?? precisely because her Son is also the only-begotten Son of God. Because of her virginal motherhood, she is the bearer to us of the grace of Jesus Christ beyond any other person.

O most gracious Virgin Mary, Help us to know and live our faith through the liberating grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, from the generous love of the Father, and in the intimate fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

O Mother of the Word Incarnate, lead us at death into the beatific light that discloses to us the transfigured Christ, the blessed love that immerses us in the glory of the Father, and the blissful life in us that springs forth from the indwelling Spirit.

Hear and answer our petitions, O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.

[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< You are reading way too much into math and if you think I use math as more than a language, that’s where you’re mistaken: >>>[/quote]YOU are reading way too much into math if you think that it is to me in an exchange like this anything more than a handy example. Math is not the point. Certainty is. You swim in it every second of every day. Where does it come from? Don’t tell me from observation. Observation provides the content. Analysis provides the interpretation and meaning. Once again. Probability is a content-less abstraction in any universe except one created by the God I worship. Not even just a generally trintarian orthodox Christian conception will do. Only one to whom “nothing is contingent or uncertain” as the Westminster assembly quite rightly proclaimed even credibly makes the claim.

Why? Because probability is by definition a measure connoting a point on the scale from impossibility (certainly untrue) to manifestly factual (certainly certain). Certainty itself at both ends utterly unaccounted for in your uncreated reality. You like the scale, but you abhor the anchors that give it meaning. You keep talkin about your house and I keep addressing the foundation. "You didn't respond to....". No I didn't. Because all of your classroom gobbledygook is a mass of hollow propositions floating around on a shoreless, bottomless sea of uncertainty. 

Ya know why you see me as arrogant? Because certainty to you is utterly foreign and just plain weird even though you’re chokin on it every second you’re alive. There’s a hint on how Elder Forlife can be so wrong about the very things he’s so right about.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Probability is a content-less abstraction in any universe except one created by the God I worship.

[/quote]

I have no doubt and I’m sorry. I don’t see you as arrogant. If you want my honest opinion, I think you’re most likely the opposite of arrogant in real life. You probably have a low self esteem and rely on looking at yourself through god’s eyes in order to see the person you wish you always saw yourself as. Probably, before you had the god you worship, you didn’t have a way to view yourself like that. Therefore, please know that I’m not 100% for turning you away from this idea.

When you’re ready to tell me how me knowing that if I jump off a roof I’ll fall means that I know something that is by definition impossible to know, let me know. I’ll let the conversation go until then.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Religion needs science to progress, but science doesn’t need religion in the same way. .[/quote]

Religion doesn’t ‘need’ science. No more than it ‘needs’ silverware. Creating new industrial materials, or a nuclear/biological weapon, needs science. They answer different questions. Science is simply a tool for the atheist or the religious, much like the fork I use to eat my salad. Religion is more of a way of life.
[/quote]

The people who are religious need science.[/quote]

Religion was present before science was formalized as we know it.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Of course, science needs leisure time for intellectual pursuits. Which needs societies. Which needs laws informed by common values. Which needs faith in moral laws written by an absolute authority. Which means needing faith in an unassailable law-giver. Pretty much the history of the west.[/quote]

Science seems to be re-writing many of these laws and discovering that these laws are NOT what wield humans into caring beings:

http://www.livescience.com/17378-rats-show-empathy.html[/quote]

Science helps us understand our relationship in the natural world, nothing more. It can help us heal if we want, turn a tv without getting up, or kill thousands upon thousands of people very quickly if we want.

[quote]Oleena wrote: I have no doubt and I’m sorry. I don’t see you as arrogant. If you want my honest opinion, I think you’re most likely the opposite of arrogant in real life. You probably have a low self esteem and rely on looking at yourself through god’s eyes in order to see the person you wish you always saw yourself as. Probably, before you had the god you worship, you didn’t have a way to view yourself like that. Therefore, please know that I’m not 100% for turning you away from this idea. >>>[/quote]There’s no such thing as low self esteem. That’s another thread though. It always degenerates into this doesn’t it? [quote]Oleena wrote:<<< When you’re ready to tell me how me knowing that if I jump off a roof I’ll fall means that I know something that is by definition impossible to know, let me know. I’ll let the conversation go until then.[/quote] You go right ahead and do that. I’ll give ya some credit for tryin again and leave ya with this. One more time. It is impossible for you NOT to know you’ll fall because subjectively you bear the image of your God who created you that way. Objectively, as a lettered scientist, you KNOW that the attraction of collections of matter to one another in proportion to their mass is a property of the universe that is quantifiable and repeatable.

What you CANNOT know without my God (and yours) is WHY and from whence, any of this is so. None of the stuff you ARE certain about CAN be ultimately even probable on your declared foundational basis. Left to yourself in your present state of sin and rebellion you will equate your holy glorious creator and master to Santa Claus and fight for your “right” to kill your own children. Completely on the basis of blind pre-committed faith… in yourself and your 2 1/2 pound brain. All the while derisively sneering at somebody who says “Hey guess what? There’s a truly supreme being who explains all this.”. You wouldn’t mind that at all except that this God is also the determiner of right and wrong and has declared your life (and mine) worthy of eternal damnation. This is when your blood starts boilin. NOBODY is tellin me how to live unles I already agree with them. Just like the bible says.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Religion needs science to progress, but science doesn’t need religion in the same way. .[/quote]

Religion doesn’t ‘need’ science. No more than it ‘needs’ silverware. Creating new industrial materials, or a nuclear/biological weapon, needs science. They answer different questions. Science is simply a tool for the atheist or the religious, much like the fork I use to eat my salad. Religion is more of a way of life.
[/quote]

The people who are religious need science.[/quote]

Absolutely. And relgion needs science as much cooking does. But the two are different disciplines. Yes, they intersect, everything does at some point. But one is not the other. They don’t ask the same questions and they don’t seek the same answers. To say they do is a monumental misunderstanding of one, or the other.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Hey now. You didn’t ask what was the CAUSE of people resisting new ideas was, you and several others on here just asked for EXAMPLES of when religion had opposed science and acted like I was crazy for stating that it had many times. So I delivered that information and it’s a LONG ASS read.

[/quote]
A lot of effort directed at a missed point.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]

What church do you go to?

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]

You can stretch and change religious beliefs to encompass new scientific findings (see giant ass list above of examples of this), but religion doesn’t change to be more accurate without science. Do you get what I’m saying? Religion needs science to progress, but science doesn’t need religion in the same way. If you choose to believe in one religion, you have to admit that you’re not using the same logic as you are to believe that when you look under a microscope, you’ll see cells.[/quote]

WOW! I mean you really don’t know anything about religion.
Science has advanced and gone through multiple paradigm shifts through out history. Religion still stands, core tenets 100% unaltered. More then that, science has never, never, ever put forth a reason to alter the core tenets one iota.
Actually science as does improve, to prove that where religion and science intersect, religon has been right.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

…I was an extremely devote Christian until about 14 years of age…I spent 14 years trying to convert everyone I knew to Christianity…

[/quote]

Did you now?[/quote]

WOW! I call this fabricating credibility.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes.

On that note, I’m going to re-read you what you wrote so you can see it through my eyes:

I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of Santa who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.

It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high Santa clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know Santa, you do not honor Santa as Santa or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible Santa for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.

I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer [Santa].

[/quote]

I am certain Santa doesn’t exists as we think of him. St. Nicholas did exist and is a real Catholic saint though. That aside, cosomology puts forth an argument that doesn’t require divine inspiration. It’s an approach from the other side, the secular side. A side we can understand with out having to rely on the ‘trust me’ factor.[/quote]

Likewise, I am pretty sure God doesn’t exist as many religious people think of it. However, Jesus and many other of the figures MIGHT have been real (although if you look at the above link, there’s a lot of evidence that the stories were stolen from past religions. I’m not sure what evidence there is about the actual story of Jesus, though, so I’ll give you that one), just like there is a knight in a battle that the Knights of the Round Table can be traced back to. However, you can’t PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist- all you can do is point out where stories about him have been made up. That’s my EXACT situation with God as described by religion.

What does cosmology have to do with the post you were responding to?

[/quote]

Cosmology has everything to do with it… It’s the way to prove what I am talking about with out having to refer to divine inspiration or heresay.
It’s how you can know there is a God and doubt there is a Santa with out confusing the to beliefs as one in the same cosmology necessitates one, while the other wouldn’t be considered. It’s why your analogy is little more than a red herring and another false belief based on misunderstanding.
This is an easy read and should give you a high level understanding.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

It even has counter arguments so it’s one stop shopping.

You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
[/quote]

It just stated that “Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.” Then it stated “Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.”

Wait a sec. Did the contingent being just provide an adequate causal explanation? Let’s see 1. God, who doesn’t have to depend on time or cause, exists 2. Therefore I exist. That’s causal and an explanation and the contingent being writing the piece provided it. If 5=a and 6=b, this would basically be saying that a does not equal b and then saying that a does equal b. Said another way “I don’t know the answer=I do know the answer”. No. You just don’t know the answer.[/quote]

Man you have some serious reading comprehension issues. It says nothing of the like. It says that all that exists, exists for a reason. It’s dependent on something else for it’s existence. Following this up the causal chain, the necessarily leads to a conclusion. See to not have a conclusion isn’t a valid argument form. It’s an error. Contingent things cannot use themselves as an explanation for there existence. The only way to solve the problem is something that is not interdependent, something that is not subject to being affected something non-contingent must exist. Further, because of the nature of the argument, there can only be one. It rolls up.

I don’t expect you to master it off of one synopsis of it. But it does 3 things. It establishes the necessity of a Godlike being to exist, by pure reason, it establishes a link between the metaphyical and physical as being intertwined, and it solves your little silly riddle about why God, isn’t like the flying spaghetti monster, easter bunny, sky fairy, or any other mythological quality. Something that is established by reason, is not the same as something that is made up.

To prove it wrong, you have to prove that causation is false, or that something can exist for no reason and with out dependence. I would even accept hypotheticals.

I know you’re all hot and bothered and you probably rushed through it with reckless speed, but it’s worth your while to know. This argument is what has given atheists fits for centuries. The contingent of atheist theoretical physicist who are trying to explain away God’s existence with science, this ^^ is what they are trying to debunk. If cannot prove this argument wrong, nothing else matters.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]

What church do you go to?[/quote]

A Catholic one :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

…I was an extremely devote Christian until about 14 years of age…I spent 14 years trying to convert everyone I knew to Christianity…

[/quote]

Did you now?[/quote]

WOW! I call this fabricating credibility.[/quote]

Olee sent me this video of her doin’ some convertin’ at the age of 11 months.[/quote]

She speaks in tongues.

Clearly the Holy Spirit has taken a hold in her.

Dont listen to those blasphemers who might, gasp, insinuate that what she does is rubbish.

The guys reaction however was spot on.

I would advise it for all such cases.

[quote]Oleena wrote:

I am interested in this proof. Prove to me that the Flying Spagetti Monster isn’t god.
[/quote]
I answered this in my repsonse to your other post. The answer lies in cosmology. Whether a flying spaghetti monster exists or not I don’t know, but I know 'it’s not what existence itself depends on.

[quote]

Geez…Science doesn’t ‘disprove’ itself, it just finds out it was wrong along. That’s not the same as putting forth a truth and then establishing another truth that proves the previous one wrong.
And science does indeed depend on empiricism, that’s it’s foundation, from hypothesis to conclusion. As Hume posited about empiricism. Unless you can know all the examples in which an observation is made, you can never be certain. Such is the case with the physical world, you can only prove it to a point. There is always uncertainty.
Contrarily, deductive proof are absolute, in all circumstances.

[quote]

The church was involved in many things through out history. Education, science, government, enetilements, etc. As the church learn more about itself, the more it stuck to what it was good at. But, those things ‘the church’ was trying to discover, was still the realm of science. Back in the old days, it just so happened that the church members and royalty happened to be the best educated. So they were the ones advancing science, medicine, etc. Now there things are separate as they should be.
This also proves your point that the church doesn’t change or advance, false. If that were true, it would still be doing those things and it’s not.

[quote]

Sorry, I find this extremely difficult to believe simply becuase you don’t know anything about religion and faith. Almost everything you say is wrong.

I have been asking questions and testing my faith for years. I find it difficult to believe that I found the answers and you didn’t. How come I know the things I know about, faith, God, and religion and you don’t? There is nothing special about me, I just sought and found the answers. I put forth the effort. If you had put forth the effort you claim, you’d know way more about it than you do.

I believe you were force to go to church and you went through the motions. I sincerely doubt your devotion.

Irronically it was Solomon who turned into the jerk. David had his moments, but Solomon turned out to be a full on womanizer, for which he lost most of the 12 tribes.

These things have been research to death. There is no evidence to show that similarities between different stories through history make one or the other false. The bible isn’t a history book, it uses history to make it’s points but to look at it from a historical perspective only is missing the point.

If God happened to reveal truths to another society in history, good for them. It’s not like they had the internet. Considering that the Hebrews were a nomadic bunch for a while and had their fair share of sojourners and did trade with other nations, I am not surprised at all if they swapped stories too.

There is no such thing as a ‘Catholic’ God. God isn’t religious last time I checked. There is no evidence, only coincidence and most of that deals with the OT. Jesus was verified as existing by other sources other than scripture.

Well somebody’s man made construction managed to changed the world even the way the calender is observed. So that was quite a story. Of course that doesn’t prove he’s real, but it would be interesting if a made up story would have been so powerful as to change the way the world worked.
Again, there is no ‘Catholic God’ just God. But thanks for finally admitting you were and are mocking him and us. It was tiring to hear “Oh I wasn’t make fun of Christians”…Bullshit, yes you were, own it.

Catholicism didn’t create anything. Religion is just a means to communicate with God, it didn’t make anything up. See this is why I have a hard time believing you’ve read the bible. If you did, you couldn’t say crap like that.
You damn sure don’t know anything about Catholicism or what it believes, I mean nothing. So don’t act like you can speak with any authority on the matter.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]

What church do you go to?[/quote]

A Catholic one ;P[/quote]

Yeah, me too. Did they burn a goat on Thursday?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Different endeavors, and not exclusive. They deal with different things. Man, I love having all three to study. Math, Science, and my Catholicism. I west to mass last night for the Immaculate Conception (beautiful!), and got my final scores in a math & a science, today, thank you very much. [/quote]

What church do you go to?[/quote]

A Catholic one ;P[/quote]

Yeah, me too. Did they burn a goat on Thursday?[/quote]

Thursday?

So your idea of a good time for the Virgin Mary is a goat?

Sacrifice Skyrim, Assassins Creed 3 and a laptop you cheap fucks.

I mean, seriously.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Can you prove that Santa doesn’t exist? No. Do you highly suspect that he was made up? Yes.

On that note, I’m going to re-read you what you wrote so you can see it through my eyes:

I’,m saying you ARE certain of a whole myriad of things because you ARE created in the image of Santa who is Himself the only possible source of certainty and you ARE also certain of that. It’s not difficult for me at all. I see staring me in the face the truth of Romans 1:18-27 every time I read one of your posts, or anybody else’s.

It has nothing whatever to do with intelligence. You’re a smart enough girl (though you try a bit too hard). It has everything to do with spiritual death and blindness. Everywhere are the “invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature” of the most high Santa clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that you are without excuse, but even though you know Santa, you do not honor Santa as Santa or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations, and your foolish heart is darkened. Professing to be wise, you’ve became a fool, exchanging the glory of the incorruptible Santa for an image in the form of corruptible man and his alleged scientific method. In other words yourself. That’s my accurate Oleena-ward paraphrase, but it applies to everybody.

I’m certain that very much of what you know is true. I’m also pretty sure there is plenty in your domain of expertise that you could teach me. Maybe elsewhere too. What I am most certain of all though is that all of this is so because we are both creatures of the same ultra holy and intelligent designer [Santa].

[/quote]

I am certain Santa doesn’t exists as we think of him. St. Nicholas did exist and is a real Catholic saint though. That aside, cosomology puts forth an argument that doesn’t require divine inspiration. It’s an approach from the other side, the secular side. A side we can understand with out having to rely on the ‘trust me’ factor.[/quote]

Likewise, I am pretty sure God doesn’t exist as many religious people think of it. However, Jesus and many other of the figures MIGHT have been real (although if you look at the above link, there’s a lot of evidence that the stories were stolen from past religions. I’m not sure what evidence there is about the actual story of Jesus, though, so I’ll give you that one), just like there is a knight in a battle that the Knights of the Round Table can be traced back to. However, you can’t PROVE that Santa doesn’t exist- all you can do is point out where stories about him have been made up. That’s my EXACT situation with God as described by religion.

What does cosmology have to do with the post you were responding to?

[/quote]

Cosmology has everything to do with it… It’s the way to prove what I am talking about with out having to refer to divine inspiration or heresay.
It’s how you can know there is a God and doubt there is a Santa with out confusing the to beliefs as one in the same cosmology necessitates one, while the other wouldn’t be considered. It’s why your analogy is little more than a red herring and another false belief based on misunderstanding.
This is an easy read and should give you a high level understanding.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

It even has counter arguments so it’s one stop shopping.

You do know, btw, that history itself is all hearsay? We know what we know based on consensus. We hope that people who wrote things down and passed things along weren’t wrong and weren’t lying. We have no real, actual way of knowing what really happened at a given time in a given place. You should scrutinize everything thing with same mind you scrutinize religion and God with. You’ll find that much of what you think is really very shaky. In truth, you can know very little.
[/quote]

It just stated that “Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.” Then it stated “Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.”

Wait a sec. Did the contingent being just provide an adequate causal explanation? Let’s see 1. God, who doesn’t have to depend on time or cause, exists 2. Therefore I exist. That’s causal and an explanation and the contingent being writing the piece provided it. If 5=a and 6=b, this would basically be saying that a does not equal b and then saying that a does equal b. Said another way “I don’t know the answer=I do know the answer”. No. You just don’t know the answer.[/quote]

Man you have some serious reading comprehension issues. It says nothing of the like. It says that all that exists, exists for a reason. It’s dependent on something else for it’s existence. Following this up the causal chain, the necessarily leads to a conclusion. See to not have a conclusion isn’t a valid argument form. It’s an error. Contingent things cannot use themselves as an explanation for there existence. The only way to solve the problem is something that is not interdependent, something that is not subject to being affected something non-contingent must exist. Further, because of the nature of the argument, there can only be one. It rolls up.

I don’t expect you to master it off of one synopsis of it. But it does 3 things. It establishes the necessity of a Godlike being to exist, by pure reason, it establishes a link between the metaphyical and physical as being intertwined, and it solves your little silly riddle about why God, isn’t like the flying spaghetti monster, easter bunny, sky fairy, or any other mythological quality. Something that is established by reason, is not the same as something that is made up.

To prove it wrong, you have to prove that causation is false, or that something can exist for no reason and with out dependence. I would even accept hypotheticals.

I know you’re all hot and bothered and you probably rushed through it with reckless speed, but it’s worth your while to know. This argument is what has given atheists fits for centuries. The contingent of atheist theoretical physicist who are trying to explain away God’s existence with science, this ^^ is what they are trying to debunk. If cannot prove this argument wrong, nothing else matters.
[/quote]

  1. Did it say that a “Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being”?

  2. Did the contingent being then proceed to provide an adequate causal account or explanation for it’s existence?