Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I'm not, don't let the 144 fool you, I am Catholic.
I have no clue what the 144 means, but I meant that by trying to steer everyone to a website, it's rather "JW"... you know, trying to convert people. That's all I meant.
Long post. I simply don't have the free time to address every point, but I will try to do your response justice.
Let's stop here. You have not yet proven the truth of the Bible. Therefore anything you base upon the Bible as premise is faulty. Your entire argument has fallen apart at this point.
Ok. Not original to Benedict, but I will agree that we are trying to agree on a singular objective truth.
I am ok with accepting a logically non-contradictory god (small g because I am addressing the concept in general, not your proper name for your deity). This avoids the contradiction of, Can a god make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.
You assert this, but you do not prove this. Why should I believe you?
I don't care about any of this. You are trying to use the Bible to prove the God, which is a biblical concept. This is a logical fallacy. You have not proven the factual truth of the bible, therefore you cannot use it to prove anything else, much less utself.
Who cares? I did not ask you about emulating God, I asked you to prove God.
You are sneaking in some assumptions that are not based on anything. You make two unproven assertions, so we are essentially back to square one. Prove any of this.
Bible proving the bible. Invalid argument.
Unproven. Mere assertion on your part
Argument from incredulity. Simply because you think it too vast, compiles and well ordered to occur without a god doesn't make it so. Once again you are making an unfounded assertion.
I disagree with you on your love/hate assertion. This is unfounded and many animals have been shown to have complex emotions. Plus, emotions do not prove God. Yes, man is currently the only species capable of complex invention. So what? This does not prove God.
Again, an assertion about the universe that you have not proven, you are reading purpose into the universe that you have failed to prove.
I don't know where the universe came from. It might have always been here. It might be a one in a quintillion bajillion chance. Doesn't really matter, because my lack of an answer doesn't mean that a god exists.
Where did your God originate?
I think that I have made my point, and I am running out of time. You simply make assertions and commit logical fallacies. There is no reason to accept your posts as truthful.
MY friend,
I'm curious; Just how ought I go about proving the 2,000 to 4,0000 YEAR old bible?
If prophesies fulfilled And the fact [even you cannot dispute] that the Church and Faith founded by Christ dates back even in secular history to Jesus, some 2,000 years ago; are deemed insufficient evidence; then by friend you only want to DEBATE, not rationally discuss, and frankly at 71 years old, I don't have the time or energy to do so.
I have no clue what the 144 means, but I meant that by trying to steer everyone to a website, it's rather "JW"... you know, trying to convert people. That's all I meant.
JW's believe that only 144,000 will be saved or some such silliness.
Patrick is pretty good at explaining the Catholic mindset as it existed from the Middle Ages to about Pius XII in the mid 1950s.
Pope Frankie, finally, seems intent on dragging the church into the late 60's. Possibly beyond.
It's a step in the right direction.
Patrick's version deserves to sink deeply into the tar sands of irrelevance, alongside the Protestant fundamentalists currently bellowing their last.
yup. "dragging" is the right word. He also understand what he is dragging. Well, I think anyway. A chemist and a doorman, a man after me own heart. sometimes ya got to just throw the fundiez out ... the hard way.
I'm curious; Just how ought I go about proving the 2,000 to 4,0000 YEAR old bible?
I really couldn't tell you. I tried to do it myself when I was a devout Catholic, but I was not able to do so. However, I think that if you are going to tell people that they should be Catholic and live by Catholic doctrine, it is incumbent upon you to justify your reasons.
Quote:
If prophesies fulfilled And the fact [even you cannot dispute] that the Church and Faith founded by Christ dates back even in secular history to Jesus, some 2,000 years ago; are deemed insufficient evidence; then by friend you only want to DEBATE, not rationally discuss, and frankly at 71 years old, I don't have the time or energy to do so.
God Bless you,
Patrick
The church indisputably dates back to Paul, and arguably, but most likely, dates back to a Jewish prophet named Jesus. So what? That doesn't mean that Jesus was divine. It simply means the church is rather old. So are many other religions.
As I mentioned earlier, prophecy is not proof. It is easy to fulfill prophecy when you have the prophecies, can edit the prophecies, write books that retroactively fulfill those prophecies, and if that doesn't work, choose which prophecies to include and exclude in your canon. Even then, some prophecies have not come true. Christ did not return in the lifetime of the apostles as promised, and Tyre was not destroyed as prophecy predicted.
You may want to quibble over the difference between debate and rational discussion, but I am happy to engage in either. My stance is that you are asking people to believe extraordinary things, and live their lives accordingly, but are unable to provide any evidence for your claims. Given your assertion that people should do this, I think it reasonable that you provide extraordinary proof to support your extraordinary claims. Yet you do not provide even minimal proof.
Patrick is pretty good at explaining the Catholic mindset as it existed from the Middle Ages to about Pius XII in the mid 1950s.
Pope Frankie, finally, seems intent on dragging the church into the late 60's. Possibly beyond.
It's a step in the right direction.
Patrick's version deserves to sink deeply into the tar sands of irrelevance, alongside the Protestant fundamentalists currently bellowing their last.
I think what struck me about this thread was how closely the attitude and tactics mirrored that of the CD fundamentalists. As soon as there is disagreement, the tone changes from "Good Christian" to nastiness, and there is no response or discussion when other ideas are introduced except sarcasm and disparagement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sometimes ya got to just throw the fundiez out ... the hard way.
