Ask a Catholic

Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Catholic

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}



This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible.  I only have a few rules/guidelines.

1.     Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.

2.     Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.

3.     Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.

4.     Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.

5.     Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way Laughing out loud

I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes.  Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.

Thank you.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
 Cliff Jumper wrote:You

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

You know implying that I may torture you does not really follow the rule of do not insult.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
You are apparently excessively thin skinned.  The atheists on this board frequently tear into each other over differences of opinion, debate among ourselves is often vigorous and invective is sometimes employed.  No one has died yet.
 

 

No, not thin skinned at all. I just asked politely at the beginning of this thread for respect and polite conversation. I have been polite to you (specifically and generally). It would be nice to at least return the favor in kind. 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
If you want to discuss these historical inaccuracies I am more then willing to do so.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Ah, so I am dealing with a Catholic revisionist ?   I was once friends with a very intelligent, college educated fellow who joined the white supremist denomination known as Christian Identity.   He was a holocaust denier.  He was quite talented at defending his POV ,  ....eloquence doesn't change history, though.

 

If you want to discuss the Inquisitions I am more then happy to do so with historical facts. However it is off topic. Pick one topic or the other please. Also again please refrain from insults back handed or otherwise. Perhaps I misunderstood your comparision of me to a racist white supremist. If I did I apologize. However, again in the future please refrain from off topic and insulting posts.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
  First of all in order for God to be omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immaterial, and etc does not mean He must be a braggert constantly showing off to everyone who demands it.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
God, being omni-everything, should have anticipated that when his modern-day followers make such ridiculously over-reaching claims regarding his omni qualities that huge swaths of humanity are rightly skeptical of such claims.   Funny that God was so willing to put on a display to impress the relatively few inhabitants of a small desert region but now that the Earth is teeming with literally billions of souls he can't be bothered to show up.

 

And yet God antcipated this by giving us His Catholic Church (Magisterium), perfect and the same yesterday today and forever. He also continues to give us His presence perpeutally at every Adoration Chapel around the world. Not to mention the Sacraments, all the miraclous signs, i.e. Guadalupe and Lanciano, healings, and of course your God given intellect.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
One can come to know these things about God, as well as other things, through the use of reasoned thought.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Don't tell me, tell it to all the people who allegedly got witness the amazing miracles.

 

Again today we have intellect, modern miracles, and the perfect Catholic Church. If you would like to witness a miracle attend your local Parish mass and watch the bread and wine transform into Jesus' body and blood. If you don't want to wait for 30 minutes then by all means walk into see Him at any Adoration Chapel. If that does not work for you go see/read about Lourdes, Guadalupe, Lanciano, and etc.   

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Secondly, your Bibical quotations are taken way out of context.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Wow, I never anticipated that reply, LOL.

 

If I see inaccurate/fallacious points I will point them out.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
1 Kings 18: 30-38 does not have Elijah putting God to the test. It has God demonstrating His power and full authority to His people.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
...by performing miracles.

 

Did you read my whole answer? If you did you would know God tried other ways before the miraculous sign.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
  These prophets and punishemnts are sent by God as a means of guiding His people/children back to Him. God after trying to show mercy exercises His full authority as God the Father. This is actually a good example of God as Father. A father gives his child/children warnings about their misbehavior several times before exercising his full authority. God as Father in this case provides His people (His children) with many warnings in the forms of prophets and small punishments, then He exercises His full power to get their attention, so to speak.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Ah, so in past ages God was more than willing to supernaturally intervene ( more miracles ) to try and persuade his Chosen People™ to return to him.  Since only a minute number of his Chosen People™ actually follow the One True Faith™ in the modern era, one can only assume by the total lack of "God demonstrating His power" ( ie, miracles ) that God has lost interest in that project.  By rejecting God his Chosen People ™ have condemned themselves to destruction.  I guess God will finish what Hitler started.

 

God supernaturally intervenes now. His Church, the Eucharist, Eucharistic miracles, miraculous signs like Guadalupe. Not only that but again we have our intellect. What you have today is the same as in the past and in the future,  people chosing sin, misery, ignorance, and death as opposed to perfection, joy, knowledge, and life. Put simply we sin nothing new here.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Obviously you should not put God to the test...

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Ridiculous.  You put God to the test every time you get on your knees and ask him to intervene in your life.

 

Prayers of petition which you are refering to are not putting God to the test. Asking is not pridefully demanding. God tells us to ask Him for what we need and want. Putting God to the test requires hubris, the inherent idea that you know better then God and thus know exactly what, how, and when, He should perform for you.

Going back to my child parent comparison. If a child says politely, "Daddy will you get me a Transformer?" this is asking not demanding or testing. If the child said, "Martin you have money! Buy me a Transformer! You know I want it now! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" this is testing, demanding, and prideful.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
...A similar situation is seen in Matthew 4:7 where Satan is testing Jesus Christ to see if He will follow God the Father's will.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Satan was testing Jesus ?  Was there ever any doubt about the outcome ?

 

See: hubris

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Generally, testing God requires one to fall into a deadly sin, hubris. There is nothing so good about any of us that we can demand God do something for us. It is similar to a child demanding something from his/her parents because he/she feels he/she deserves it. This is arrogant, disrespectful, and unloving.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
....except when it goes to establishing one's credibility and fidelity to past demonstrations of Godly intervention.   I guess the value of some people's souls lacks sufficient merit for your capricious God's intervention.   Figures.

 

Again we have the Perfect Catholic Church, many modern miracles, and our intellect. The argument, "God needs to perfrom for me to prove His existence." is not a cogent argument for the existence of God. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
So- What you'resaying here is---

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}



This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible.  I only have a few rules/guidelines.

1.     Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.

2.     Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.

3.     Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.

4.     Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.

5.     Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way Laughing out loud

I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes.  Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.

Thank you.

 

They should be good Christians.  Smiling  That's not likely to happen--however, if you noticed you are merely asking them to abide by the rules of the site.

I was a Catholic until I joined the USMC in 58. The movie "Full Metal Jacket was my summer of 1958. I was brought up until the age of 13-1/2 at the St Cloud MN Childrens home (google it). I was an Alter boy and at 13 was at that time considered an elder amoung ther other kids just as all kids that age back then were considered fairly well grown up.

Today- I cannot see where any religion on the planet is correct--and I also say--not biblically correct.

A question-- Why do you consider the Pope correct. Before you answer that, go to this site.   https://    sites.google.com   /site/   oldseers  (close the spaces)  The crux of the matter is---if the Pope (or any other religion claiming to be Christain) dosen't have page one of the bible correct he's got very little else correct. Please understand, I am not intending to be of negative intent by any measure.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

 

 

Again we have the Perfect Catholic Church, many modern miracles, and our intellect. The argument, "God needs to perfrom for me to prove His existence." is not a cogent argument for the existence of God. 

 

  It's funny because your quote fully epitomises religious hubris.  Dictionary.com [ hubris, noun: excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. ]

 

 

  To paraphrase..."What nerve you atheist !!! How dare you question the "perfect"Church, how dare you question God's existence !!! ?   God doesn't perform tricks !!!

 

  I love irony, don't you ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well I'm tired of waiting

Well I'm tired of waiting for a response so I'll nitpick at other statements while I wait.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
And yet God antcipated this by giving us His Catholic Church (Magisterium), perfect and the same yesterday today and forever.

The catholic church is not perfect. Unless you support child molestation and those who would protect molesters from justice.
Also, the catholic church is not the same today as it was a hundred years ago, and it will not be the same in a hundred years as it is today. The most simplistic research would show you as much.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Again today we have intellect, modern miracles, and the perfect Catholic Church. If you would like to witness a miracle attend your local Parish mass and watch the bread and wine transform into Jesus' body and blood.

The bread and wine remain bread and wine. There's no miracle in that. You're the first person I've ever encountered who claims it changes into flesh and blood. Well I'm sorry if you take offense to this fact, but it doesn't change into flesh and blood. Never has, never will. If it did, then it would qualify as evidence your god exists. Which would be huge, since there isn't any such evidence.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
God supernaturally intervenes now. His Church, the Eucharist, Eucharistic miracles, miraculous signs like Guadalupe.

Just fairy tales. No miracles have ever been proven. Most are obvious fakes or old wives tales.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Not only that but again we have our intellect.

Thank evolution for that. Literally.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The argument, "God needs to perfrom for me to prove His existence." is not a cogent argument for the existence of God. 

Actually it is, for your god at least. Without proof of his existence, one cannot believe he exists, and therefore cannot have faith in him. For some people proof enough is found in having been told he exists. For others, a hallucination or unexplainable coincidence will suffice. But some of us need real evidence. Something that doesn't come from other people or fluke scenarios or crossed wiring in the brain. It doesn't have to profit anyone or hurt anyone, it just has to prove he's actually out there.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, fair enough on point 1. Upon a closer reading, I found that the version I was reading was more ambiguous, and other versions were more clear and seemed to imply exactly what you mean. At which point, though, does it imply that it was due to insufficient belief, and the later attack featuring Deborah and Barak was successful due to full belief? I didn't find any such suggestion. 

That said, there are 2 other verses easy to find that suggest that god can't do anything. Mark 6:5 suggests Jesus was powerless to do some things, and Hebrews 6:18 says that it's impossible for god to lie (which is a problem when considering Ezekiel 14:9 saying that god can and does).

 

Okay first let me deal with Mark 6:5. It does not say Jesus Christ was/is powerless but that he could not heal the people of Nazareth. This has nothing to do with having or not having the power to do so. It has to do with the faith of the people there. It says before this that the people disbeleived not just that he was Jesus the Christ but also in what all that entails, i.e. that he is God, and all powerful. When they disbelieved they simply did not want any miracles or miraculous signs, and they did not ask for them. This is supported in two ways. Number one in that same verse Mark 6:5 it says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." So he did do miraculous deeds, just very few of them because there were very few who beleived. Second, notice that all the miracles Jesus did in the Gospels were done when an act of faith was done either directly or implicitly. In other words faith requires works. You cannot just say you believe and that's that. If you believe there are certain things you will do to express this belief. For example, I believe that an antibotic (a cure) exists for strep throat.  However, unless I actively get the antibiotic from the doctor I will not be cured. Just like I believe Jesus is the Christ and can do all things. Thus I will ask Him for a cure, or whatever.

Bullshit.. Antibiotics work independant of belief in them (or even knowledge of taking them). My dog took them to prevent infection in his recently operated on scrotum (normal operation for male dogs) to prevent infection. They work. If you had strep throat, the drugs you take have been proven to work in trials at a better rate than placebos. 

Why is belief mandatory for a cure? In Luke 22:51, I assume those who came with the high priests wouldn't have come if they did believe. Regardless, Jesus was able to heal the dude's ear. This implies that belief is not mandatory for healing. The verse we were discussing in Matthew, upon checking every version on bible gateway I understand (46 in English, 3 in Polish, yes I checked them all!) and one extra Polish one (that I wouldn't add until I read that it is the most common translation used, "Biblia Tysiaclecia&quotEye-wink, I found that 78% of English translations didn't imply what you said it implied, nor did 50% of Polish versions. According to the new testament, belief is only sometimes mandatory in order to be cured. Incoherent, as the bible usually is.

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This extends to the verses in Judges with Judah, Deborah, and Barak. Judah does not have complete faith in the Lord and thus does not do everything required to fulfill that faith. Notice that Deborah beleives in what God says then does the work required to fulfill that belief. Barak however beleives but does not do everything required to fulfill that belief. In these cases God is not powerless but they lacked the faith and thus did not do the required works to perfrom said actions. Where specifically in those verses is this found? Easy. With Judah it's more implicit. The lack of faith means a lack of works. Deborah believes then does all that is required to believe. Barak however, believes only in part and as a result does only in part what needs to be done.   This theme of faith and works is found through out the entire Bible.

 

And this theme of faith and works is contradicted, as shown above. 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Ezekiel 14:9 does not have God lying. Ezekiel 14:9 says that God will allow false prophets to lie about him and will allow Isrealities and Gentiles to accept the lies or the truth. Again this is a common Hebrew literary device. They see all things as the will of God. Thus those who choose against Him is known to God and is in His will. This is not say however that God wants us to or makes us lie about Him to others, simply that He will allow it.  because

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
There is a problem with this. You could read history to find out how Abraham Lincoln became the person deemed most responsible for freeing the slaves. You can read of what he did, and you can read of what others did. I seriously do not know enough about the history to say much, but I'm sure much insight could be had reading about it. So while it's appropriate to say that "Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves" in a casual conversation, in a history class or a history club, you would probably delve into more detail. So why, then,  would you say that when we're discussing religion, theology, and god, that "Yahweh is the cause for all things" is sufficient to explain anything? Your book may assert that, but for those that don't accept the authority of the book (especially with its internal contradictions, one of which I've just highlighted), we demand far more explanation if we are to believe that this has anything to do with truth.

The Bible is not the sole source of authority and/or teaching on God as the cause for all things. God has given us His Catholic Church, the Deposit of the Faith, the writings of the doctors and father's of the Church, and much more. So when reading the Bible we read it not in isolation but with other resources. This is similar to when English classes read Shakespeare or Dickens with other aides like Elizabethian dicticonaires, a study of history, etc. 

I'll get to that in a bit. You brought up extra-biblical sources for your belief which I will discuss shortly, after I cover the biblical. The King James, and New International translations in English (and the Biblia Tysiaclecia in Polish, the 3 Biblegateway.com translations for Polish are new testament only) imply in Ezekiel 14:9 that when the prophets deceive someone, it is the lord who has deceived them.  Have you a reason to disagree with how that is written?

Now, Catholic Church. I don't have to agree with them. Next, the Deposit of the Faith. Sounds dirty to me. Jokes aside, it refers to scripture and apostolic succesion, which I also don't believe. Even if someone were to prove to me that it did go down a line from Peter or Paul, I don't believe that what they think they saw is what they actually saw. I find that an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. The writings of the doctors and fathers of the church are all the same thing. Basically, what you've said is

Cliff Jumper wrote:

God has given us His Catholic Church

Aaaand a bunch of stuff that requires that that is true. Since I disagree with the truth of that, you have succeeded in explaining nothing to me thus far. 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
In reverse order: Judaism, Protestants, Coptic Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Eastern European Catholics, Muslims, Calvinists, and Jehovah's witnesses all do agree that Yahweh (despite alternate names like Jehovah or Allah) is all of those things. I agree with that. Even though that is a sizeable chunk of the world population, it doesn't mean a thing. That many people can be wrong, and I contend that they are. 

You have started this thread to talk of Catholicism specifically, so I'll leave the second point, and would like to speak further on the "truths which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith". There is typically a lot more discussion with Protestants on these boards it seems, so I wouldn't mind getting to a specific denomination (especially since it's the one I was raised in).

 

What do you want to know about the Catholic faith? Ask away on a topic, Crusades, contraception, abortion, scriptural cannon, Inquisitions...

Discussing these issues will help show the differences and logical fallacies between the other faiths, and why the Catholic faith is the One True Faith.

Why would I ask on those topics? I think it's obvious why the Crusades and Inquisitions. These were intended to spread dogma and doctrine by force.

The injunctions in Catholicism against contraception and abortion are because the Catholic Church wants its adherents to have more children. The number 1 indicator of someone's religion is the religion of their parents. It would, of course, be hypocritical to say that a rule only applies to Catholics. Therefore, they attempt to apply it to everyone. Also, people are more likely to turn to religion in times of trouble. If a particular religion sees every instance of procreation as a gift, someone who is having troubles with it may gravitate towards that. These two rules exist only for the purpose of self-preservation of the church. The same applies to injunctions against euthanasia (it would be hypocritical to allow that in light of the others) homosexuality, etc. The one against homosexuality is even more sinister in a way. Since anyone growing up Catholic sees that as a mortal sin, they see same sex attraction as something that is not even an option. When they realize that they're not attracted to the opposite sex, they are very likely to, instead, opt to the priesthood, or in the case of girls, a convent. I have a priest in my extended family, and a former Catholic nun as well. Due to a continental divide, I have yet to discuss this with the former nun, but I would love to. Short story, she found a man. Not every nun and priest is gay, but other than a small amount of asexuals (which do exist), I would venture that many are. It's a good reason why you seemingly see such a small number of gay Catholics. Seriously, you should meet my relative who is a priest. You'd see what I mean. 

As far as scriptural Canon, clearly I think there are major contradictions, and I have to mention historical and scientific misstatements as well.

Why did you point me to those particular questions? What is a really radical claim specific to Catholics is apostolic succession, and transsubstantiation. What evidence do you have for those 2 things? That's what I want to know. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Brian37:

Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is.  I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h. 

 

Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to cause it? Does lightening need Thor to cause it?

I know it may make you feel good to want a god, but no. There never has been or ever will be such a thing. God/s are products of human immagination, yours included.

BTW you really want to claim a god that allows 50 million deaths per year worldwide?

 

Oh and I am sure you are aware that El, Elohim and Yahweh are all names plucked from the divine family of the Canaanite pantheon, right?

 

I believe you are misunderstanding my point. I am not some how doing away with natural laws like gravity, motion, thermodynamics, climatic laws, and etc. I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite. Again I am not saying God directly causes hurricanes, the tides, the rotation of the moon, and etc.  However, God created the laws that govern the universe and the finite universe itself.

As to the 50 million deaths a year worldwide. Where does this number come from? What does it entail? Secondly,what's your point? Are you trying to say God is responsible for all those deaths? I'm guessing you are? God has allowed death to enter the world through our choosing, free will. God did not create death. 

The last comment is off topic too much. Getting into cultural translertations of words and cultural writing styles is a different conversation entirely. I am happy to have it but only after we can move on from this topic. 

No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.

Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis.

How is stating the fact of 50 million deaths worldwide off topic? Pointing this fact of natural reality is in direct conflict with the concept(as an idea, as a claim) of "omni" in "all powerful" and "all loving". How could such a claimed being be deemed "all powerful" if this is the spotty record? Would you hire someone to run a factory with such lousy output? And if you were a god yourself would you allow all that death? In no way am I saying that to be mean to you. It is attacking the idea as being a broken concept that does not work logically speaking.

 

 

 

 

First, I was saying the transletarions of El, Elohim, and Yahw-h were too far off topic. That is a fallacious idea, which I am happy to discuss after the current conversation on why Yahw-h is the one true God. If you wish to drop that subject, agree to disagree, or agree for the sake of argument then I will discuss a new topic. Until then I will not discuss two completely seperate topics. 

 

"No I am not missunderstanding your point. One has to let their brains fall out to justify fantastic claims in all holy books and myths, then when called on those fantastic claims they move the goal posts and cop out to metaphore when science doesn't match their book. Take heart though, you are not the only one and not even the only religion who makes this error in logic. You simply like the god you swallowed so mentally you work backwards to justify it in your head anyway you can.

Men do not magically pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. The sun and moon are not the same source of light. Donkeys and bushes do not talk. It takes TWO sets of DNA to make a baby. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis."

 

I have not used any Biblical proofs for proving Yahw-h as the true God. I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.

You are changing the topic by listing Biblical misunderstandings. If you want to discuss your misunderstandings of Bibical passages I am more than willing to do that as well. However, I will discuss only one topic. We can continue the copy of Yahw-h as God, or you can choose, to move onto one of the other two topics.

Now onto the topic at hand. Fifty million deaths a year and natural disasters having nothing to do with God the Father. God the Father created a perfect universe, we (humans) sinned. This original sin made the imperfections we see and experience. You cannot blame God for our choices. 

Yes the Canaanite names ARE ON TOPIC, that is where they got the name Yahweh from. Point is that neither the Hebrew religion OR the Chrisitanity that became a spin off are original. Point being HUMANS pull their ideas from prior and surrounding cultures. Invisible sky hero claims are ALL products of the human imagination, YOURS and every single one claimed in human history.  We could care less if you were claiming ALLAH or Isis or Vishnu. It is still your own wishful thinking.

Quote:
You cannot blame God for our choices. 

See if you can spot the pattern.

"You cannot blame Allah for our choices"

"You cannot blame Vishnu for our choices"

"You cannot blame Apollo for our choices"

 

Sorry dude, but you are in the same boat as every other human with ANY invisible sky hero claim. Your pet god claim is NOT special to us.

Again not on topic. If you wish to discuss the false claim that Yahw-h the name comes from earlier pagan cultures. We can discuss that. Right now though we are dealing with why Yahw-h is God, not misunderstandings of lingual transliterations. There is no other God like Yahw-h. I can explain why Allah, Isis, Thor, El, Baal, etc are not like God Yahw-h if you would like. Where do you want this conversation to go next. 

1. How Yahw-h is different from X god 

2. False claims of Yahw-h as a name and/or concept borrowed from another culture(s).

Choose one please.

 

Actually according to the Muslim belief system I can blame Allah for my actions as Allah can interfere with my choices as seen in the Koran and Hadiths.

Vishnu can interfere with my actions too as seen in the the traditions of Hindusim.

Apolle can interfere with my actions as well as seen in many Greek myths.

None of those gods are even remotely the same to Yahw-h. None allow for free will in practice, literature, and reality.

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.

no, you have not. empirical evidence for something as unique as a personal god would be seeing god. you can analogize all you want about tables needing carpenters or what have you, but analogies are just that: analogies. they do not qualify as perception, not in the logical world and not in the scientific world. the existence of god cannot be determined scientifically anyway, as it is not a falsifiable claim.

 

A table needs a carpenter/designer is not an analogy in and of itself. It is a fact. I have seen a table being built by a carpenter. It is true regradless whether or not I directly experience it. "I don't see it; therefore, it doesn't exist." is not a cogent argument against God, for God, or for/against anything. Even science does not work on strict empiricism.

I agree science cannot prove God's existence. We agree yea! I never said any such thing though. I said scientific evidence in conjunction with other evidences supports the existence of God.

 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek

Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.

no, you have not. empirical evidence for something as unique as a personal god would be seeing god. you can analogize all you want about tables needing carpenters or what have you, but analogies are just that: analogies. they do not qualify as perception, not in the logical world and not in the scientific world. the existence of god cannot be determined scientifically anyway, as it is not a falsifiable claim.

 

A table needs a carpenter/designer is not an analogy in and of itself. It is a fact. I have seen a table being built by a carpenter. It is true regradless whether or not I directly experience it. "I don't see it; therefore, it doesn't exist." is not a cogent argument against God, for God, or for/against anything. Even science does not work on strict empiricism.

I agree science cannot prove God's existence. We agree yea! I never said any such thing though. I said scientific evidence in conjunction with other evidences supports the existence of God.

 

 

 


it becomes an analogy when you attempt to make a syllogism out of it. and i'm not arguing against god's existence. i'm arguing that the evidence you present will not be compelling to most people here because it is not scientific.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:iwbiek

Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.

no, you have not. empirical evidence for something as unique as a personal god would be seeing god. you can analogize all you want about tables needing carpenters or what have you, but analogies are just that: analogies. they do not qualify as perception, not in the logical world and not in the scientific world. the existence of god cannot be determined scientifically anyway, as it is not a falsifiable claim.

 

A table needs a carpenter/designer is not an analogy in and of itself. It is a fact. I have seen a table being built by a carpenter. It is true regradless whether or not I directly experience it. "I don't see it; therefore, it doesn't exist." is not a cogent argument against God, for God, or for/against anything. Even science does not work on strict empiricism.

I agree science cannot prove God's existence. We agree yea! I never said any such thing though. I said scientific evidence in conjunction with other evidences supports the existence of God. 

And yet I can walk through the woods for 5 minutes and find a table that didn't have a carpenter. The only way your syllogism works even in the sole case of a "table" is if you define the word "table" as something that is created by a human for the purpose of being used as a table. In which case, it is a purely semantic statement. If you define "table" as any object that can adequately fulfill the function of what we generally call a table, then no carpenter is required. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway Laughing out loud

 

 

Funny how reality gets in the way of fantasy. Why didn't you simply pray for your sky hero to magically fix it? Made the earth in 6 days. Magically popped a man out of dirt. Made a baby without a second set of DNA.

I've had to fix crashed computers too, gut one for parts to revive another. But I don't pray to a fictional computer god to do it.

But I did pray and God did answer my prayer and fix my computer. He blessed me with my earthly father who does that kind of thing for a living and fun. So not only did God through my father here fix my computer, but he taught me some neat partioning tricks, how to notice hard drive problems, and other cool stuff.

Just because God does not perfrom at the snap of your fingers to answer your every whim how and when you want it does not mean He does not exist.

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Cliff Jumper

Old Seer wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

First of all to understand your territory/Habitat, Define Christianity.

Response to Old Seer

Christianity is Catholicism. In other words the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

according to a Pope and religioious leaders in general. I know what you believe. The question was/is, what is your definition of Christianity. What's it for, how is it supposed to do what it's for, and how is it that what it was to accomplish hasn't happened yet, that is, if you say it's supposed to bring about a world of peace. If so--what happened that it hasn't come about. OR, what other goals is it supposed to accomplish, and can you explain "why" that hasn't happened as yet. And,What has Christianity done for the world so far when the world the same today as BC.  What is Christianity;s purpose?   Smiling

 

The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed is the basic definition of Christianity. What is what for? The creed or Christianity? The Creed is used to define what Christianity beleives and what one must believe to be Christian. Christianity specifically Catholicism (The One True Faith) is used to keep you holy, with Christ, and ultimately to bring you into Heaven with the Trinity.

Jesus nor the Catholic Church ever said that an Earthly utopia would come about if Christianity was true and/or if many or all were Christian.

As to Christianity's true goals, which overall is the salvation of souls through the spreading of Christ's Gospel and teachings, this has not happened yet for several reasons:

1. We only reach salvation after the death of the flesh. So there are people still alive who are yet to be saved.

2. People will choose no slavation over salvation.

3. Jesus has not returned which is necessary for evil to be fully and truly defeated.  

These are not all the reasons but some big ones.

As to what Christianity specifically Catholicism has given the world since BC well there's a lot.

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

2. The Catholic Church

3. The sacraments

4. The flourishing of western civilization

6. The formation of Europe

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

10. Constitutions

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

12. Trail by jury

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh goody, a list!

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

But screw everyone else right?

 

2. The Catholic Church

Something that many more people would be alive today if it didn't exist. 

 

3. The sacraments

Always a good excuse to kill or jail people who don't follow them. 

 

4. The flourishing of western civilization

Lol, really? REALLY? Do I laugh or cry? 

 

6. The formation of Europe

Through the most violent period known in human history and the mass slaughter of tens of millions.

 

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

Yeah, ask Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Galileo and Menocchio. The Church certainly helped them contribute through imprisonment and torture. 

 

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

While condeming any scientist who dared make a discovery that wasn't consistent with Church doctrine. 

 

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

Uh huh...

 

10. Constitutions

Which Constitution was written by a Catholic?

 

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

Really? The Greeks were Catholic? 

 

12. Trail by jury

Again, originated by the Greeks and in practice long before Rome adopted Christianity. As far as the modern jury, it finds its roots in Scandinavia, which was overrun with Pagans at the time. It was adopted in England by Aethelred the Unready, also not Christian. It then disappeared for awhile until it was brought back with the Magna Carta by King John, who was excommunicated by the Church. 

 

Quote:

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

Sure, when you willingly rewrite history to fit your agenda. You are either extremely ignorant of history or you are completely dishonest. Since you are a good Catholic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Your concept

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

First of all to understand your territory/Habitat, Define Christianity.

Response to Old Seer

Christianity is Catholicism. In other words the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

according to a Pope and religioious leaders in general. I know what you believe. The question was/is, what is your definition of Christianity. What's it for, how is it supposed to do what it's for, and how is it that what it was to accomplish hasn't happened yet, that is, if you say it's supposed to bring about a world of peace. If so--what happened that it hasn't come about. OR, what other goals is it supposed to accomplish, and can you explain "why" that hasn't happened as yet. And,What has Christianity done for the world so far when the world the same today as BC.  What is Christianity;s purpose?   Smiling

 

The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed is the basic definition of Christianity. What is what for? The creed or Christianity? The Creed is used to define what Christianity beleives and what one must believe to be Christian. Christianity specifically Catholicism (The One True Faith) is used to keep you holy, with Christ, and ultimately to bring you into Heaven with the Trinity.

Jesus nor the Catholic Church ever said that an Earthly utopia would come about if Christianity was true and/or if many or all were Christian.

As to Christianity's true goals, which overall is the salvation of souls through the spreading of Christ's Gospel and teachings, this has not happened yet for several reasons:

1. We only reach salvation after the death of the flesh. So there are people still alive who are yet to be saved.

2. People will choose no slavation over salvation.

3. Jesus has not returned which is necessary for evil to be fully and truly defeated.  

These are not all the reasons but some big ones.

As to what Christianity specifically Catholicism has given the world since BC well there's a lot.

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

2. The Catholic Church

3. The sacraments

4. The flourishing of western civilization

6. The formation of Europe

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

10. Constitutions

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

12. Trail by jury

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

of Christianity then, is Catholisism. That's hypocrtical. If the Pope is chosen by a super human then why do Cardinals have to elect one. It turns out that ---if---Cardinals elect a Pope then "they" are the super humans. And in turn--if the Cardinals elect the Pope then they are God--right---which in turn menas that if they are the super humans  --then what do they need a Pope for. The whole thing doesn't make sense. The Jehovahs
Witnesses claim also that their religions leaders are chosen by God. That happens (according to them) at a special ceremony where if one drinks the wine that same is a member of the 144000. How am I supposed to believe that. There's nothing to go on except --they say. Religions depend on "belief because "they say" but they have no proof of what "they say". There's no such claim in the book that there is any such being as super human. That's merely and ancient belief fostered by those who set themselves above others and acquire the postion of leaders. Religions are nothing more then another civil government that has no civil powers but maintain dominance over others by belief, while civil governments use police force to maintaihn dominance, and neither has solved a single social problem going back 1000s of years. What's the problem????. The dark age Euorpeans merely attached their religion to the bible. What you have there is Europeanism, not Christianity.

What you are describing in your posting is --the Cathiolic church instituted civilization--which can't be. Catholisism is a religion as any other--and will never solve the worlds problems any more then governments will. What use is religion if it's not going to change anything. I can't believe just because someone "says". Drinking wine from gold goblets and wareing special finery hasn't, and isn't,  going to change a thing--that we have evidence of. What can the Pope and the Cardinals do/say that will bring peace to this planet. Old Seer.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
all these arguments go out the window if i don't accept the thomist axioms. "a finite universe needs an infinite creator," "nothing greater can come from something lesser," etc., etc.--there is absolutely no empirical reason why i should accept these as givens. you're arguing within a closed scholastic system. that won't fly here.

No empirical reason. Okay. I was not aware science and reason had disproven these things. Can you name a specific empirical example that disproves theses "axioms"? I'd love to see it, because if it existed science sure would cease to function as it kinda relies on the cause and effect thing.


no, no, no. basic logic tells us that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion. it's not up to me to disprove your axioms. it's up to you to prove them. if you can't, just be a good lad and say, "i can't." no shame in your game. as for cause and effect, no, science does not depend on cause and effect. science depends on empirical observation: this and nothing more. one of the pillars of science is the idea that, yes, the universe can at any time just say, "fuck it," and start behaving differently. but until that happens, we rely on the best (i.e. most predictive) information we have. "cause and effect" are terms relative to our perception and inference.

 

I provided proof. These axioms are logical proofs, backed up by scientific and empirical evidence. For, "nothing greater comes from something lesser" how about the observable and varifible fact that the separate ingredients for pancakes, flour, butter, milk, vanilla extract, and sugar do not spontaneously come together to form the batter much less a completely cooked pancake. It takes something great, i.e. ordered intelligence, to mix them together and cook them to form the more complex pancake(s). For, "a finite universe needs an infinite creator" see the previous demonstable fact. Infinity is objectively greater than finity, thus finity must come from something infinte.


an axiom cannot be a "proof." "proof" has to relate to axioms. axioms are not testable things. they're either accepted or not. even science works from an axiom, i.e. that empirical observation is the only admissible evidence for determining knowledge. if you don't accept that axiom, your statements will not be scientific, by definition.
infinity has never been proved to exist, therefore to use the term "objectively" with infinity is fallacious. as for your pancake analogy, it's just that: an analogy. analogies might be useful teaching tools SOMETIMES (i for one avoid them like the plague), but they are certainly not "proof" of anything in any scientific sense. sorry.

Would you accept scientific evidence for God or infinity for that matter? Do you accept science at all? Do you accept only some axioms as opposed to others? Why accept the axioms which support science? Your statement is some what confusing as you do away with axioms yet some how rely on them for science. Is it just the axioms which support science that you accept?


if you'll look closely, you'll see that i haven't once said what i personally accept and do not accept. i'm merely pointing out why your "evidence" or "proofs" are not scientific and therefore are not going to be compelling for most people on this site. and for the 50th time, no, "infinity" is not scientific proof of anything because "infinity" has never been proved to exist. it's purely a theoretical concept.
on an unrelated note, i don't understand how you can have been posting here so long and not realized that no one ever gets censored here, outside the kill 'em with kindness forum, unless they make specific, consistent threats or unless they just blatantly troll. so chiding dana for using gifs that some people "might consider offensive" is not going to go down well with anyone here. on the contrary, if your precious feelings are hurt so easily, you just need to leave. there are plenty of forums on the web--theologyweb, for example--where your kind of limp-wristed comment-policing is alive and well. you're welcome to it.

 

I never said you made a statement regarding your personal beliefs. Again, I never said all my proofs and eveidences were scientific. Some are some are not. So far I have seen no scientific arguments against Yahw-h as God here. I have seen typical responses that are all traditional ignorant or back handed insults. I was asking you questions to better understand your position(s).

As to the insults and impolitiness, I was unaware that politeness was completely out the window. I was also unaware that my expection to have a rational and polite conversation was irrational and an unachievealbe expectation for some atheists on the rational responders site.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Cliff

darth_josh wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

darth_josh wrote:

My question for the alleged catholic is: "Did you not get the memo about the word 'Yahweh'?"

 

You'll have to be more specific. That it is supposedly derived from pagan sources? That it means something different than I am Who am?

 

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804119.htm

http://www.americancatholicpress.org/Father_Gilligan_Yahweh.html

Old sources, but the first ones that popped up. The tetragrammaton isn't to be used in ministering.

Unless I missed a newer memo... which of course is yet another reason why I have so much time spent trying to discern which denomination of which faith whichever theist actually wants to try to adhere to whenever.

So you'll need to pardon my skepticism about your catholicism because you use an anachronism to preach your theism.

Oh and you have a Doctor Who quote in your sig.

Actually the tetragram is not be used in some literguical hymns and prayers. It did not completely eliminate it. This was done because Yahw-h is a Holy name of God the Father, which He spoke. This tradition is something that goes all the way back to the ancient Hebrews. So following that tradition (a fine and good but not dogmatic tradition hence the little "t&quotEye-wink we Catholics do the same.

Doctor Who is fantastic!

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Battle of the Boyne - July 12, 1690

Old Seer wrote:
If the Pope is chosen by a super human then why do Cardinals have to elect one. It turns out that ---if---Cardinals elect a Pope then "they" are the super humans. And in turn--if the Cardinals elect the Pope then they are God--right---which in turn menas that if they are the super humans  --then what do they need a Pope for. The whole thing doesn't make sense.

Leave it to a Prottie to speak ill of the pope on Orangemen's Day...

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Listened to about 5 words

zarathustra wrote:

Old Seer wrote:
If the Pope is chosen by a super human then why do Cardinals have to elect one. It turns out that ---if---Cardinals elect a Pope then "they" are the super humans. And in turn--if the Cardinals elect the Pope then they are God--right---which in turn menas that if they are the super humans  --then what do they need a Pope for. The whole thing doesn't make sense.

Leave it to a Prottie to speak ill of the pope on Orangemen's Day...

of the thing and x'ed out. Us Seers don't go along with such nonsense. Floks aren't goping to respect others, are they. We don't say the Pope is right but we do respect beliefs of others. The animal mind rules on planet earth. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:As to the

Cliff Jumper wrote:
As to the insults and impolitiness, I was unaware that politeness was completely out the window. I was also unaware that my expection to have a rational and polite conversation was irrational and an unachievealbe expectation for some atheists on the rational responders site.



oh please, don't be obtuse. your finger-wagging that i responded to in my post was not prompted by any insult or impoliteness. it was prompted by dana's gif of someone pouring syrup over a madonna statue, which only the hyperreligious would consider "insulting" or "impolite." i'm sorry, but we don't cater to the sensitivities of the hyperreligious here.


now, that being said, it is very possible that someone here will be rude or insulting when faced with asinine or ignorant posts. most of us just don't suffer fools. if you find that irrational or disconcerting then, as i said, you're welcome to fuck off to another site.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

 

No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

 

No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?

You call the Catholic Church a criminal organization then want to lecture me about calling religion poison. HA! 

FYI, all religions are based on lies which makes them poison. But good luck treating that institution as a criminal organization. See that is you don't get my "treat religion like a volcano". Now do you honestly think you can rid the world of Catholics? No more than you could remove Mt Fuji. 

Don't rightfully point out the bad religion causes then fucking lecture me about calling it poison. 

Yes the origins of that church are rooted in tyranny and the Popes were not saints, they were gang leaders. But thats what all religions set up, gangs. It allows humans to set up "in group out group". Catholics don't own a monopoly on religious tribalism.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Cliff Jumper

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

"Again God created us perfect. He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way. We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.

God is not in charge of our choices. That would be in contracidtion to his all loving nature. You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.

We choose to do evil, not God. He knows our choices, and He allows us to make them. However, He is not responsible for our actions."

1. Yes I beleive in papal infallibility. You are misunderstanding papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impecability which is what you are confusing it with. The popes are not protected from personal sin, or from the sins of others. Infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals and the Church's teachings on them.

2. I believe in transubstantion. It is not magic. It is a miracle, big difference. They do not collect money to perfrom the miracle. The collection is for charities. Ask your local parish for a breakdown of it's chartiable donations from the collections.

3. Yes, Mary, perfect in her humanity, was assumed body and soul into Heaven. We imperfect humans do not have bodies because they are imperfect (result of personal and original sin). In the fullness of time all those in Heaven will recieve perfect bodies.

 

 

 

 

Hi Cliff Jumper. Something that is evident is your insistence in the ultimate fallibility of the empirical method counterbalanced by your dogmatic belief in 'facts' like the ones above. I think it's fair to argue raw empiricism is not the only way to approach generally knowable human truths - in fact I would argue rationalism and empiricism are always applied together in human brains - but you seem to be doing something else. You highlight empiricism's inability to disprove god and having established 'doubt' over its power in this 'case', argue absolute truth can yet be ascertained in 'other ways'. These ways seem to be absolute belief based on the bald assertions contained in the bible - they are beyond any normal method of confirmation. Could you tell us if you have any doubt about your beliefs? Or are you absolutely certain? 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

"I never said you made a statement regarding your personal beliefs. Again, I never said all my proofs and eveidences were scientific. Some are some are not. So far I have seen no scientific arguments against Yahw-h as God here. I have seen typical responses that are all traditional ignorant or back handed insults."

Having read the entire thread I see no one has successfully defined god. You asked others what their idea of a god might be but did not clearly define your own idea of a god beyond broad human concepts like 'cause', 'intelligence' and 'higher power'. It does seem to me that you are supporting the abstract noun 'god' with labels that are equally nebulous. Would you argue it is possible to prove the existence of a thing that has not been defined and whose characteristics are both undefineable and outside our ability to confirm? I think it's possible to believe in such a thing - but that is not the same as proving the existence of such a thing to be more or less true. 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

It is a demonstrable fact that if something began something caused it to begin. So for the car, it began to be when it was assembled. So something assembled it, say factory workers and machines. Something created the machines and people, and on and on and on, until you reach a point where something that always existed created the first finite thing, finity. Positing infinte beginnings does not explain where finity came from. For the second, that is the nature of infinity. If it has a beginning/end it is not infinite. 

 

Cause and effect is an empirical observation. Given empiricism lies at the core of your christian beliefs, could you explain to us at what point you believe empiricism stops functioning as a tool for increasing your personal knowledge about god? 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

 

It's a false dichotomy to suggest empiricism (I think you mean sense data in this case) and rationalism (human reason) are opposed as ways to know things about the experience of human existence. When the researcher seeks to confirm a rationally conceived hypothesis, empiricism and rationalism work together. When the christian employs the cosmological argument, empiricism and rationalism work together. In fact, I would argue that empiricism and rationalism used together comprise the best way for humans to ponder and seek to confirm those things that seem to be true. 

What would you say that 'truth' is, Cliff Jumper? What do you mean when you use that word in support of statements about your entwined experiences of the objective and subjective world?

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:FYI, all

Brian37 wrote:
FYI, all religions are based on lies which makes them poison.



no, they're not. lying is a conscious, malicious decision. there is zero evidence most religious founders were liars. they may have been misguided, ignorant, inaccurate, etc., but they were not liars. religions are based on two types of claims: historical and parahistorical. i'm not going to bother defining those terms because as much as you shoot off about religion you should know what they mean. the historical claims can be falsified in theory, and most of them have been. that doesn't make the claimers liars. maybe they were, maybe they weren't--that's almost always impossible to tell. you say they were liars because you want them to have been liars: it fits your polemical motives and reinforces the rhetoric you've committed years of your life to. as for the parahistorical claims, there is no way to empirically falsify them. if someone claims to have had a mystical or revelatory experience, be it of god or shunyata or brahman or whatever, you have no logical leg to stand on in telling him he didn't. so how can we maintain that someone has "lied" in this situation? only and purely polemically.


that being said, brian, i'm still waiting for you to man up and say you were wrong about your historical assertions over on the wealth envy thread. i guess you just forgot...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Make some kids of my own someday, at the appropriate juncture :

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, fair enough on point 1. Upon a closer reading, I found that the version I was reading was more ambiguous, and other versions were more clear and seemed to imply exactly what you mean. At which point, though, does it imply that it was due to insufficient belief, and the later attack featuring Deborah and Barak was successful due to full belief? I didn't find any such suggestion.

That said, there are 2 other verses easy to find that suggest that god can't do anything. Mark 6:5 suggests Jesus was powerless to do some things, and Hebrews 6:18 says that it's impossible for god to lie (which is a problem when considering Ezekiel 14:9 saying that god can and does).

 

Okay first let me deal with Mark 6:5. It does not say Jesus Christ was/is powerless but that he could not heal the people of Nazareth. When they disbelieved they simply did not want any miracles or miraculous signs, and they did not ask for them. This is supported in two ways. Number one in that same verse Mark 6:5 it says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." So he did do miraculous deeds, just very few of them.. If you believe there are certain things you will do to express this belief. For example, I believe that an antibotic (a cure) exists for strep throat.  However, unless I actively get the antibiotic from the doctor I will not be cured. Just like I believe Jesus is the Christ and can do all things. Thus I will ask Him for a cure, or whatever.

B.S. -- Antibiotics work independant of belief in them (or even knowledge of taking them). My dog took them to prevent infection in his recently operated on scrotum (normal operation for male dogs) to prevent infection. They work. If you had strep throat, the drugs you take have been proven to work in trials at a better rate than placebos. 

Why is belief mandatory for a cure? In Luke 22:51, I assume those who came with the high priests wouldn't have come if they did believe. Regardless, Jesus was able to heal the dude's ear. This implies that belief is not mandatory for healing.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
What do you want to know about the Catholic faith? Ask away on a topic, Crusades, contraception, abortion, scriptural cannon, Inquisitions... Discussing these issues will help show the differences and logical fallacies between the other faiths, and why the Catholic faith is the One True Faith.

Why would I ask on those topics? I think it's obvious why the Crusades and Inquisitions. These were intended to spread dogma and doctrine by force.

The injunctions in Catholicism against contraception and abortion are because the Catholic Church wants its adherents to have more children.

 

  I know, I for one,  would like  to make some kids of my own ..someday (55555), at the appropriate juncture.  I am so bad (Lol!)


 


 Attn. To  0ff - site (Only)

    Nice to know  the left hand doesnt know what the right one  is doing  in trifling in matters in which you have little to no  impact on a lasting peace.

    What is hardly sought  also  a  community  where believers can practice love toward their brethren  as the Bible requires;  "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,.." (~ 1 John 1:7a) And, ''Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going ;  but you  cannot  tell  from whence I come or where I am going.'' (~John 8:14)

    Context   independent used in  a  message  to  0 F F  S i t e  (as you already do know is true of most of this ) 

 

The crime scene, she was just Nuzzled or blowing a kiss across a room, maybe ?

The crime scene, she was just Nuzzled or blowing a kiss across a room, maybe ?

 You might be familiar with.. kinda going by a set of information by design  where this guy seems  slippier than an eel.

  SongLyrics ::


’Cause I need some protection

(Not that kind Of,  Saint Thecla protect us (plural), dirty minded Elders; who do you take me for ??!?  I dont care to stick around to find out !!)!!
 

When I see the connection
 

Though I see I don’t stare
 

Though I see I don’t stare
 

 


When I’m lost in my reflection
 

Though I see I don’t stare
 

Though I see I don’t stare
 


Then I change my direction
 

One foot follows the other
 

One foot follows something new
 

’Cause I need some protection
 

And I’m scared I could lose it
 

If I stare, you’ll be gone
 


  Alright Elders   .. check  up  on  your  free reading 'fiction' lists (See/View Upload)::



Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jabberwocky

Brian37 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

 

No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?

You call the Catholic Church a criminal organization then want to lecture me about calling religion poison. HA! 

FYI, all religions are based on lies which makes them poison. But good luck treating that institution as a criminal organization. See that is you don't get my "treat religion like a volcano". Now do you honestly think you can rid the world of Catholics? No more than you could remove Mt Fuji. 

Don't rightfully point out the bad religion causes then fucking lecture me about calling it poison. 

Yes the origins of that church are rooted in tyranny and the Popes were not saints, they were gang leaders. But thats what all religions set up, gangs. It allows humans to set up "in group out group". Catholics don't own a monopoly on religious tribalism.

^ Brian, attempting to make new enemies by lying about what someone said AGAIN.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jabberwocky

Brian37 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

 

No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?

You call the Catholic Church a criminal organization then want to lecture me about calling religion poison. HA! 

FYI, all religions are based on lies which makes them poison. But good luck treating that institution as a criminal organization. See that is you don't get my "treat religion like a volcano". Now do you honestly think you can rid the world of Catholics? No more than you could remove Mt Fuji. 

Don't rightfully point out the bad religion causes then fucking lecture me about calling it poison. 

Yes the origins of that church are rooted in tyranny and the Popes were not saints, they were gang leaders. But thats what all religions set up, gangs. It allows humans to set up "in group out group". Catholics don't own a monopoly on religious tribalism.

Lectured? When?

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Brian37

Jabberwocky wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

 

No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?

You call the Catholic Church a criminal organization then want to lecture me about calling religion poison. HA! 

FYI, all religions are based on lies which makes them poison. But good luck treating that institution as a criminal organization. See that is you don't get my "treat religion like a volcano". Now do you honestly think you can rid the world of Catholics? No more than you could remove Mt Fuji. 

Don't rightfully point out the bad religion causes then fucking lecture me about calling it poison. 

Yes the origins of that church are rooted in tyranny and the Popes were not saints, they were gang leaders. But thats what all religions set up, gangs. It allows humans to set up "in group out group". Catholics don't own a monopoly on religious tribalism.

Lectured? When?




don't worry about it. i really think brian is starting to hallucinate or something. he gave me a good dressing-down last week for calling hitchens a maoist, something i've never done in my life, nor would do, because, unlike brian, i know what a maoist actually is.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Destiny (prarabdha) versus self-effort (purusartha):

 

  Re :: Destiny (prarabdha) versus self-effort (purusartha):

danatemporary wrote:

 



  re :: Careful!! At one point or another all traditions fail us all

   > Cliff Jumper (and especially lurkers, too)
 

 



WhiteHeart (band) "Jerusalem"

♪ Jerusalem, you set the world on fire

 Jerusalem, city of desire

 We’re watching you

 

 What will you do

 Oh Jerusalem

 Jerusalem, the prophets call your name

 Jerusalem, but THEY CALL OUT IN VAIN

 ‘cause you don’t hear

 How many tears must fall, Jerusalem

 

♪ Jerusalem, you are the wailing wall

 Jerusalem, you break the hearts

 Of all who dreams for you

What can we do

Oh Jerusalem

 Jerusalem, the prophets call your name

 Jerusalem, but THEY CALL OUT IN VAIN

 ‘cause you don’t hear

 How many tears must fall, Jerusalem

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:


 . . only the "catholic" God . . . 


   In the 'Battle for the Bible' John Hus and maybe John Wycliffe were "burned at the stake". Do think it was the will of "God", the Catholic god, as you put it  to burn these men at the stake, given the Magisterium of the church along w/ Roman Catholic papal Infallibility ?    John Wycliffe they succeeded at sentencing him to the stake, I know.  And for what ? 

 Joshua Ch 5 --

 13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked , and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our foes, the adversary? 14a And he said , No! Neither; but as the captain of the host of the LORD

 

   re :: Careful!! At one point or another all traditions fail us 

p.s.  -- Unpredictable (well, almost) :~

 

 [A Brief.. PRE-POST  POST]

 



 

 The Roman Catholic pope was quoted extensively on the radio news for a recent speech, his homilly (which I completely missed) Where he said married couples should look at how Jesus loves his Church. Marriage can be extremely messy. As sinners we can do dumb things in marriage—we hurt one another; we make false assumptions and then miscommunicate; we manipulate or say mean things to our spouse; we think less about serving and more about being served. We don’t always follow God’s Word. In addition, reportedly he goes on, to always being faithful, love also must be “untiring in its perseverance”, he said.Just as Jesus forgives his Church, spouses must ask each other for forgiveness so that “matrimonial love can go on,” he said. “Perseverance in love” must endure, in good times and bad, “when there are problems, problems with the kids, money problems, problems here and there.”“Love perseveres,” he said. “It keeps going, always seeking to resolve things in order to save the family.” And something about a ''culture of conformity'' is to blame for all these couples that end up with pets, instead of kids, substitutionally. He is quoted as saying: “It might be better — more comfortable — to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog. Is this true or not? Have you seen it?  “Then, in the end this marriage comes to old age in solitude, with the bitterness of loneliness.“

       >>    Covet their familiar joys (yes, they were blessed)  heppinn crīstesmæsse

      



 



   re :: Destiny (prarabdha) versus self-effort (purusartha):

 

  A day, it's a beautiful day when  love is openly expressed, where 'we' can love, not only be loved. As the ancients put it : of the good lady, greatly is her, within who possesses the principal tablets with the obligations

 



  And IMHO, It is past overdue someone made the time needed to understand, explore, or puzzle a bit on why I’ve written what I’ve written, I certainly left enough clues (there are more than enough clues ~ double meaning) . . 

  Sumerian or other Assyrian religions and in the faith systems of the ancient Sumerian and the Akkadian of Assyria's --One of the greatest of all conceivable powers,  was  to  wield the key influence  over destiny,  instances were said to 'decree destiny' when presenting their gift, in the councils of the ancient gods, these few themes were  infused in their own language and culture in the older ANE culture. The vital control of destiny was sought about all else in the power struggles of the gods. The Tablets of Destiny were believed to contain the details of fate and the future, which controls each individual’s future state; he who held them, according to surviving accounts, was able to determine the fate all things. Imdugud (Akkadian: Anzu  or  variant of Zu/AnSu) states:

'I shall take the gods´ Tablet of Destinies for myself,
And control the orders for all the gods,..''

 Where he noticeably made off with them, so instead of letting it go, there was a need to have them recovered.  Although, For the true Christian, it is essential to maintain a true trust and abiding faith, no matter how grieved the heart may burden one. It doesn't mean inaction is FOREVER! Provisions are made for the sake of the future family.

 

 p.s.  -- This is sort of a Pre-Post Post. The Tablets of Destiny were believed to contain the details of fate and the future, ancient gods fought over their possession.
 

 


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Cliff

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

Again God created us perfect. He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way.

 

  I love how Christians redefine terms like "perfection."    Considers God's "perfection",  a being who allegedly exercises absolute free will yet is incapable of sinning.  Adam and Eve were also created with free will ...and perfect ...yet those two amazing attributes in humans inexplicably fall apart given just a slight nudge from "sin™"  I guess in the world of Catholic fairy tales there is "perfect", and then there is perfectly perfect.

 

   God has a problem with quality control, apparently.

 

You are misunderstanding. God is infinte, immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-just, omni-loving, omni-mercifiul, all good, and perfect. For Him to chose against that would mean He is none of those things. God is good always as it is His isness. In other words it is His very nature to be all these things.

For us we were created perfect, and allowed to choose between life and love or death and hate. One cannot love without choice, free will. Without choice we would simply be robots, slaves. There would be know love, no joy, and no perfection.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.

these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...

 

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

 

 

Former Catholic myself FYI.

 

Your pet god claim and your personal comic book do not impress us. If you were arguing for the Koran or Reg Vedas as being the magic books that give you a cosmic Bat phone to your super hero in the sky, our arguments would be the same.

That book, from the OT to the NT took over 1,000 years to write, with books left out, and none of the NT was written during the alleged life of the Jesus character.  The earth was not made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. There is no such thing as a magic baby born without a second set of DNA. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Do not blame us for the crap written by scientifically ignorant humans who had no way of knowing. It was understandable back then when they didn't know better. We know better now.

Humans make up gods, and that is the truth. Yours and every religion in human history, from the dead myths you rightfuly reject to your own you falsely believe now. We do not play favorites to any god claim.

 

As a former Catholic you must know that the Bible is not the sole source for information regarding Jesus Christ and His teachings. I have been using other methods besides the Bible. You keep saying, "You can't use the Bible as proof. It's no more valid than ____ holy book" I have not used the Bible to prove God's existence. 

It's taken 1500 years to write the last 1500 years of history. With many of the writers not even alive when those they were writing about were alive. For example, Patrick Henry's books weren't penned till 20-30yrs after he died & his memorable speech at St John's wasn't recorded by pen for 20 yrs. So He never said or wrote those things by your logic.

Again, your erroneous claims about Genesis can be discussed if you like. There is no Catholic doctrine that the Earth was made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. God formed them, see design and creation. Again a woman does not pop out of ribs. The first woman was formed and designed by God. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, but again Jesus Christ was human and divine. Jesus Christ was not a magic baby born strictly of natural means. He was born from God the Father and the Immaculate Virigin Mary.

How am I blaming you for anything? I have never blamed you, generally or specifically, for anything in the Bible. I am more then willing to defend its contents as separate topic if you like.

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:  You

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

 

You are misunderstanding. God is infinte, immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-just, omni-loving, omni-mercifiul, all good, and perfect. For Him to chose against that would mean He is none of those things. God is good always as it is His isness. In other words it is His very nature to be all these things.

 

   No I understood "perfectly".    You have two versions of "perfection" in your world view that you are unwilling to acknowledge.  Should I go through and contrast the differences again ?

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
For us we were created perfect ...

 

   You do not understand what perfection implies. Or more likely you do understand but protecting your religious dogma trumps acknowledging simple logic.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
..and allowed to choose between life and love or death and hate. One cannot love without choice, free will. Without choice we would simply be robots, slaves. There would be know love, no joy, and no perfection.

 

       You still choose to ignore that God's offer is predicated upon coercion ( rewards and punishment )  or in more simple terms ...."Love me or I'll burn you alive"    Gotta love the Christian version of "free will".

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Please define

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

You are misunderstanding. God is infinte, immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-just, omni-loving, omni-mercifiul, all good, and perfect. In other words it is His very nature to be all these things.

 

 

Please define these words - infinite, omnipotent, omni-just, omni-merciful, all good, perfect and most curiously, immaterial. Explain how you were able to ascertain the very nature of your still undefined idea of god. Explain how it is logical to assume the first premise of any argument - in this case, that premise is god. Would you agree that you are using undefined and undefinable labels to define an undefined and undefinable god?

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
 

For us we were created perfect, and allowed to choose between life and love or death and hate. One cannot love without choice, free will. Without choice we would simply be robots, slaves. There would be know love, no joy, and no perfection.

 

As well as being predicated on the bald assertion of a still undefined state of perfection, this argument proposes a false dichotomy - we get to choose between life and love, and death and hate. Human nature is more nuanced than this. Further, love and joy are products of the mammalian limbic system, they aren't really a matter of choice. Ask anyone who suffers depression. As for perfection, this label applies to a human concept that is subjective - there is no empirical measurement of perfection. 

Again, CJ, could you tell us if you have any doubts about your christian beliefs? Or are you utterly certain?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Brian37

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.

these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...

 

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

 

 

Former Catholic myself FYI.

 

Your pet god claim and your personal comic book do not impress us. If you were arguing for the Koran or Reg Vedas as being the magic books that give you a cosmic Bat phone to your super hero in the sky, our arguments would be the same.

That book, from the OT to the NT took over 1,000 years to write, with books left out, and none of the NT was written during the alleged life of the Jesus character.  The earth was not made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. There is no such thing as a magic baby born without a second set of DNA. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Do not blame us for the crap written by scientifically ignorant humans who had no way of knowing. It was understandable back then when they didn't know better. We know better now.

Humans make up gods, and that is the truth. Yours and every religion in human history, from the dead myths you rightfuly reject to your own you falsely believe now. We do not play favorites to any god claim.

 

As a former Catholic you must know that the Bible is not the sole source for information regarding Jesus Christ and His teachings. I have been using other methods besides the Bible. You keep saying, "You can't use the Bible as proof. It's no more valid than ____ holy book" I have not used the Bible to prove God's existence. 

It's taken 1500 years to write the last 1500 years of history. With many of the writers not even alive when those they were writing about were alive. For example, Patrick Henry's books weren't penned till 20-30yrs after he died & his memorable speech at St John's wasn't recorded by pen for 20 yrs. So He never said or wrote those things by your logic.

Again, your erroneous claims about Genesis can be discussed if you like. There is no Catholic doctrine that the Earth was made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. God formed them, see design and creation. Again a woman does not pop out of ribs. The first woman was formed and designed by God. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, but again Jesus Christ was human and divine. Jesus Christ was not a magic baby born strictly of natural means. He was born from God the Father and the Immaculate Virigin Mary.

How am I blaming you for anything? I have never blamed you, generally or specifically, for anything in the Bible. I am more then willing to defend its contents as separate topic if you like.

 

No amount of claims inside or outside that comic book makes magic babies or invisible sky heros, by any name real. It is a mere book written by mere humans who didn't know jack shit about the nature of reality. That comic book reflects the superstitions and social beliefs of it's time.

No need for a separate thread. You could be arguing for Allah or Thor or a god named Frank. All the same shit to me.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
So I guess I won. I've given

So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So I guess I

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

I concur.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

I concur.




yup, same thing with brian and his spurious hypatia quotes, his spurious marx quotes, and his bullshit about me calling hitchens a maoist. i demonstrated conclusively he's wrong, gave him plenty of time to man up, but he never wants to admit he's wrong, because he's a smarmy, self-righteous little pussy with a martyr complex, so he just ignores.


BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I just had a vision of

I just had a vision of everyone putting that into their sig. lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

Wrong. Beauty, art, and love can be measured in some ways. Beauty can be polled, but it's also known that different people find different things beautiful, even though there are many commonalities in what we do find beautiful. That makes beauty subjective. However, I'm sure there are things that you can say you find beautiful but others don't, and you know that to be the case without polling anybody else. I'm sure that there are things you find beautiful that you think people would agree with you on, and you also know that going in. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean that it can't be proven to exist. That is a preposterous claim. 

Art is also subjective (and one may call art beautiful, so it's weird that you chose those 3 words specifically). What humans find beautiful is known to be subjective, and the only way to even sort of measure beauty is by majority opinion. 

Love on the other hand, is something we can measure. Oxytocin and dopamine basically. It may seem reductionist and crude, but it's true. It doesn't mean that it doesn't feel amazing just because we've uncovered the brain chemicals that cause the feeling.

You claim that it is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. You are wrong. It is our ONLY reliable method of verifying anything that we do know. 

 

What you have pointed out for beauty are polls and objects like paintings which are beautiful. These are not beauty itself. Please show me beauty. With art you simply named framed paper with inks on it, not art. Show me art. With love you simply named some chemical processes and the neurotransmitters invloved in those processes. You neglected other aspects of love. And again you did not show me love. There is no question that there are material qualities to beauty, love, art, and etc, but that is not their whole it is a part.

I did not say empirical reductionism was the wrong way to gain knowledge. I said, "Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so."

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
 Cliff Jumper wrote:  We

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

  We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

    A.)   WE chose ?  I didn't take a bite of the forbidden fruit, did you ?  I chose no such thing. 

    B. )  Having Adam and Eve's guilt of disobedience laid at the feet of later generations was entirely God's decision.  There is no logic ( or justice ) in transferring guilt based upon lineage.

 

No you did not choose the forbiiden fruit. You are not held responsbile for that by any means. The Catholic Church has not taught this. However, I know you have chosen sin in your life. We all have. Thus you, I, and everyone has rejected God's perfect love.

Adam and Eve's personal sin is not laid at our feet. We have never nor will it ever be on each one of us individually for eating the forbidden fruit. This idea is a common misunderstanding. We suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve's original sin. The effects of original sin and sin in general is not confined to just one time. There are physical and spiritual consequences. Think of a sin like stealing. If I steal someone's computer I have sinned. In the physical world I have taken a material object from someone else. Spiritually I have separated myself from perfection and goodness, Yahw-h. The repurcussions of my action are experienced by others in the physical world. For instance the victim lacks a computer, certainity of security, trust, and etc. Thus the vicitim suffers from the consequences of my action(s).

With Adam and Eve's sin, direct disobedience to God and His will we suffer the consequences, i.e. a world and us separated from God's perfection. Now we can be brought back into full union with God through participation in His mercy through His Catholic Church and the Sacraments specifically Confession.

There is more to original sin, sin, and concupiscence but this is a very basic explanation of it.

 

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
God is not in charge of our choices.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Because of God's foreknowledge he is utterly reponsible.   Knowing the future with absolute certaintly adds a layer of responsibilty that no mortal could ever be held accountable for.  

 Even in the legal world individuals are held responsible for the actions of others if they had reason to believe that a particular person was prone to commit some criminal act yet they failed to take proper action to prevent it.   If you are a healthcare worker or a teacher and fail to report even suspected child abuse and are found out, you will find yourself facing prosecution despite the free will of the abuser.  Your guilt will be based upon your failure to act based upon even partial knowledge.   In a court of law the issue of the abuser's free will be no defense for your failure to act.

 

  Your "perfect" God has no defense, whether he causes evil or simply permits it, his divine qualities ( omniscience  + omnipotence ) are the very things that make him responsible for the actions of his created beings.

 

You are mixing up two separate issues. One is the issue of God, the Law giver who exists outside of space and time and who made the Law. The other is our role as the Law choosers (uphold or break). So continuing your example of a child abuser and an accomplice God would be the one who wrote the law not the one who chose not to report the problem.

God has told us what is right, (i.e. the Law is written on our hearts.) we then choose to uphold this or not.

Here is an example. A teacher makes a multiple choice test. The teacher knows the answers, the teacher also knows that some students will get them right, some will not, and some will cheat. The teacher has told them not to cheat. It is up to the students to uphold or break those rules. In the end, final judgement, the students will be rewarded or punished based on their actions.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
"Love" that is based upon coercion ( rewards or punishment ) is a superficial, meaningless love.  The process becomes tainted by appeal to self interest.  Would you rather go to Heaven ( reward ) or burn in Hell  ( punishment )  ?    These are literally the terms that God offers himself to humanity ..."Love me or I'll burn you alive."

 

   The only scenario that would be a true and honest expression of loving God without regard to selfish interest would be for God to eliminate his carrot on a stick approach.    If God removed the threat of Hell and the reward of Heaven, only then could it be an honest, genuine expression love.

 

God coerces no one. God has never said to anyone, "Love me or I'll burn you alive." God has said to us to choose Him (life and love). If you choose against Him you are invariably chosing death and hatred, Hell. If God removed Heaven and Hell there would be no love or chance for love, because their would be no choice. You cannot love without choice, and with choice comes consequences.

Think of marriage. You cannot have marriage without a proposal a choice. Of course with the proposal comes the consequence of a denial. In your scenario of "love" you would do away with the proposal, the choice, and the denial and simply have the man force the woman to be with him. That is not love at all.

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I was disposed to be

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

God coerces no one. God has never said to anyone, "Love me or I'll burn you alive." God has said to us to choose Him (life and love). If you choose against Him you are invariably chosing death and hatred, Hell. If God removed Heaven and Hell there would be no love or chance for love, because their would be no choice. You cannot love without choice, and with choice comes consequences.

 

Polite to Cliff Jumper initially but if I read too much more of this tawdry confirmation bias - rank bald assertion in support of the spurious doctrine of hell - we'll be kissing toleration goodbye.

This individual is drowning in an ocean of undefined labels. It's not hard to see why some one this irrational is attracted to blatant fallacious appeal to force. 

Hell is nothing more than a threat based on the ad hominem fallacy of the doctrine of The Fall, Cliff Jumper. Heaven is a fallacious appeal to consequence.

Heaven, Hell and The Fall are not places or events but irrational arguments and as we all know perfectly well, no irrational argument can ever be true. 

Please stop assuming your first premise and speaking as if you, or the authors of the biased doctrine of your cult, know the 'mind' of an entity allegedly existing outside of space and time, yet inside the mind of Cliff Jumper.  

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

I concur.


yup, same thing with brian and his spurious hypatia quotes, his spurious marx quotes, and his bullshit about me calling hitchens a maoist. i demonstrated conclusively he's wrong, gave him plenty of time to man up, but he never wants to admit he's wrong, because he's a smarmy, self-righteous little pussy with a martyr complex, so he just ignores.
BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.

FUCK! YOU TYPED IN CAPS, YOU GOT ME!

"Maryter complex"? HA HA HA  HA. OOOOOOOOOkaaaaaaay. 

"Pussy" yep, that is why I am still here not running from you.

So myths and fables should be taught as fact? In a diverse species one economic tactic fits all of humanity forever, or do different situations call for different approaches depending upon conditions?

"Man up" I love that stupid sexist chalenge as if what is between your legs is important.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

I concur.


yup, same thing with brian and his spurious hypatia quotes, his spurious marx quotes, and his bullshit about me calling hitchens a maoist. i demonstrated conclusively he's wrong, gave him plenty of time to man up, but he never wants to admit he's wrong, because he's a smarmy, self-righteous little pussy with a martyr complex, so he just ignores.
BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.

FUCK! YOU TYPED IN CAPS, YOU GOT ME!

"Maryter complex"? HA HA HA  HA. OOOOOOOOOkaaaaaaay. 

"Pussy" yep, that is why I am still here not running from you.

So myths and fables should be taught as fact? In a diverse species one economic tactic fits all of humanity forever, or do different situations call for different approaches depending upon conditions?

"Man up" I love that stupid sexist chalenge as if what is between your legs is important.




yes, you are running. you refuse to answer a simple question: will you admit you were wrong about the erroneous assertions you made in the wealth envy thread? (i outlined three of them there, in case you've conveniently forgotten.) until you show any inclination at all to at least admit you're wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated, then you show no evidence of having any integrity.


and fine, brian: woman up. because my wife will also admit she's wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated.


until then, you're a fucking coward.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ha ha Brian doesn't have as

ha ha Brian doesn't have as much balls as a woman.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Remember Me . . .

  > Re ::  Remember Me . . .

 Remember Me (double reference, and double meaning) . . .

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so.

I concur.

 To the OP our Cliff Jumper  (Attn. To Cliff Jumper )

  In the New Testament documents, in Jude he exhort his audience ''to contend for the faith once for all delivered'' . Can you comment on the cross, and the death on a cross, if you can make the time please.

  I dont know why, especially due to your overall approach, Fore you are woefully unqualified to speak on this topic, I know ( meaning you are totally and woefully unqualified to speak on this topic). However, please comment on many misconceptions have pervaded the notions about the mechanism(s) and cause of death by crucifixion, a subject dear to all of us; it's the death on which He (Christ) fulfilled and satisfied the substitutionary propitiation by being nailed to an old wooden cross, afterall.

 Comment  supplementary from some Lutheran of all things

 

  ''In the second century BC a Jewish author close to the Essene community made a new edition of the laws of Deuteronomy, incorporating verses from Leviticus and Numeri as well as priestly teaching from his own time. He published this new edition, which included a lengthy section on the temple, as authoritative Torah of God. In 1956 the bedouins found two copies of this work north of the Dead Sea. In this book, today called the Temple Scroll, we meet a radical reinterpretation of these verses from Deuteronomy:  If a man informs against his people, delivers his people up to a foreign nation and betrays his people, you shall hang him on the tree so that he dies. On the word of two and three witnesses shall he be put to death, and they shall hang him on the tree. If a man commits a crime punishable by death, and he defects into the midst of the nations and curses his people, the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree so that he dies. And their bodies shall not remain upon the tree, but you shall bury them the same day, for those who hang on the tree are accursed by God and men, you must not defile the land which I give you as an inheritance (Temple Scroll 64:6-13).  In Deuteronomy it is not clear whether the evildoer should be hanged alive upon the tree or only his corpse after he is executed (most interpreters do not note that the Hebrew can be translated either “is put to death and you thereafter hang him on a tree” or “is put to death when you hang him on a tree” ). The Temple Scroll clearly ordains that certain evildoers shall be executed by being hanged alive on the tree. The word tree can mean a tree, a pole or a cross. In rabbinic sources “to hang on the tree” primarily means execution by hanging on a pole. Crucifixion would also be considered a form of hanging somebody upon the tree.''  ~ Prof. Torleif Elgvin ( of the Seminary of the-INDEPENDENT Lutheran Church, of Oslo)

 



 

 

   They went and found a young donkey outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it . .  It was the stubborn little donkey who insists on sitting firmly on its' haunches, who no one has ever ridden . . .

    ''Today we celebrate the day called “Palm Sunday,” the day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem one week prior to his crucifixion and death of the Savior. In most cases some of you may be wondering why this is called “Palm Sunday”, it’s because according to the Gospel of John the crowds in Jerusalem came out to greet Jesus carrying palm branches, which they either waved or strewed in his path. We have two independent accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry, one in the Gospel of Mark and the other in the Gospel of John. Historically speaking, this is very important . . '' ~ William Lane Craig (who is an American  christian theologian).

  Ref. found in the New Testament . . .

Gospel According to Saint Luke 19 (NKJV) ::

 

 29 And it came to pass, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of his disciples,  saying, “Go into the village opposite you, where as you enter you will find a young donkey tied, on which no one has ever sat. Loose it and bring it here. And if anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing the donkey?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the LORD has need of it.’” Then they brought her to Jesus. And they threw their own clothes on the young donkey, and they set Jesus on him. And as He went, many spread their clothes on the road. Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, saying:  “ ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’  “Hosanna!, 

Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

 

Gospel According to Saint Mark 10 (NKJV)::

 

 11 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples;  and He said to them, “Go into the village opposite you and as soon as you have entered it, you will find a young donkey tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it. And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he will send it here.” So they went their way, and found the young donkey tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it. But some of those who stood there said to them, “What are you doing, loosing the donkey?” And they spoke to them just as Jesus had commanded. So they let them go. Then they brought the young donkey to Jesus (Thank Heaven) and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it. And many spread their clothes on the road, and others cut down leafy branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:  “Hosanna!,  Hosanna in the Highest!

‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’

Blessed is the kingdom of our father David

That comes in the name of the LORD!

Hosanna, .. Hosanna in the highest!”

 

  . . .

 


 



 

 

  :: ::

 Edit :: ( Edit  Spacing or formatting of spacing )

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:ha ha Brian

Vastet wrote:
ha ha Brian doesn't have as much balls as a woman.

Nope, women kick ass, and could kick my ass for sure. Your point?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

I concur.


yup, same thing with brian and his spurious hypatia quotes, his spurious marx quotes, and his bullshit about me calling hitchens a maoist. i demonstrated conclusively he's wrong, gave him plenty of time to man up, but he never wants to admit he's wrong, because he's a smarmy, self-righteous little pussy with a martyr complex, so he just ignores.
BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.

FUCK! YOU TYPED IN CAPS, YOU GOT ME!

"Maryter complex"? HA HA HA  HA. OOOOOOOOOkaaaaaaay. 

"Pussy" yep, that is why I am still here not running from you.

So myths and fables should be taught as fact? In a diverse species one economic tactic fits all of humanity forever, or do different situations call for different approaches depending upon conditions?

"Man up" I love that stupid sexist chalenge as if what is between your legs is important.


yes, you are running. you refuse to answer a simple question: will you admit you were wrong about the erroneous assertions you made in the wealth envy thread? (i outlined three of them there, in case you've conveniently forgotten.) until you show any inclination at all to at least admit you're wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated, then you show no evidence of having any integrity.
and fine, brian: woman up. because my wife will also admit she's wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated.
until then, you're a fucking coward.

You forgot the caps, it was much more dramatic in caps. FUCKING COWARD! Let it all out, you'll feel lots better.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

I concur.


yup, same thing with brian and his spurious hypatia quotes, his spurious marx quotes, and his bullshit about me calling hitchens a maoist. i demonstrated conclusively he's wrong, gave him plenty of time to man up, but he never wants to admit he's wrong, because he's a smarmy, self-righteous little pussy with a martyr complex, so he just ignores.
BRIAN, YOU'RE A FUCKING COWARD.

FUCK! YOU TYPED IN CAPS, YOU GOT ME!

"Maryter complex"? HA HA HA  HA. OOOOOOOOOkaaaaaaay. 

"Pussy" yep, that is why I am still here not running from you.

So myths and fables should be taught as fact? In a diverse species one economic tactic fits all of humanity forever, or do different situations call for different approaches depending upon conditions?

"Man up" I love that stupid sexist chalenge as if what is between your legs is important.


yes, you are running. you refuse to answer a simple question: will you admit you were wrong about the erroneous assertions you made in the wealth envy thread? (i outlined three of them there, in case you've conveniently forgotten.) until you show any inclination at all to at least admit you're wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated, then you show no evidence of having any integrity.
and fine, brian: woman up. because my wife will also admit she's wrong when it's been clearly demonstrated.
until then, you're a fucking coward.

You forgot the caps, it was much more dramatic in caps. FUCKING COWARD! Let it all out, you'll feel lots better.

 

And you still avoid all of his questions. It is really hard to determine whether you or Caposkia are more intellectually dishonest. The only thing going in your favor is I have a stronger feeling that Caposkia knows he is being intellectually dishonest. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
ha ha Brian doesn't have as much balls as a woman.

Nope, women kick ass, and could kick my ass for sure. Your point?

A child could kick your ass. *rolleyes*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You forgot the

Brian37 wrote:

You forgot the caps, it was much more dramatic in caps. FUCKING COWARD! Let it all out, you'll feel lots better.

 




i don't need to let it out. you just proved it. again.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Cliff

Antipatris wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

Dafuck ? Seriously ?

 

Also, might want to reconsider your definition of the word "offensive" :

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/10/st-louis-archbishop-claims-he-wasnt-sure-it-was-illegal-for-priests-to-have-sex-with-kids/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4110268.ece

 

 

Again please refrain from offensive images. I am aware you can say or do whatever you want. However, as I am treating you with courtesy and respect I do expect some politeness in return. Thank you.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor