- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Venial Sin my butt!
Posted on 3/25/24 at 8:37 pm to Midtiger farm
Posted on 3/25/24 at 8:37 pm to Midtiger farm
quote:Is it true that Catholics are required by the precepts of the RCC to observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Roman church?
Nobody is getting judged on food or drink you Protestant heathen
quote:I certainly am, but do so according to God's word. I don't believe that the Scriptures teach a works-based salvation, and I don't believe they teach required fasting's and abstinence during certain days or times of the year. I believe that anyone or any organization that binds the Christian's conscience in these areas beyond what the Scriptures dictate are in sin.
If anything you are judging Catholics on our beliefs
0
Posted on 3/25/24 at 9:05 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:See it however you want, but the fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants is in regards to ultimate authority. Catholics don't recognize the Bible alone as their highest authority, so they already embrace an interpretive grid that allows the Bible to be understood based on other authorities. Champagne just allows other man-made theories in the secular realm to direct what God's Word says just like he allows the Roman church to direct understanding of the Bible for him through implicit faith.
I don’t see it that way. Champagne is most likely unable to delude himself as well as you are able to delude yourself, and he sees the incontrovertible facts that modern science has revealed, and is forced to reinterpret the Bible (perhaps many passages as allegory) in light of this evidently true reality (e.g. round earth, biological evolution, old universe, etc.). You are both using the same books with the same authority. He gives some authority to the church while you do not, but the church is still using the Bible to establish its doctrines (while using tradition - some of it pagan in origin - for a lot of its practices).
quote:I'm not embarrassed about anything I believe. I'm embarrassed for you as someone who tries to pass himself as an intellectual expert on these topics while fundamentally missing out on core doctrines and beliefs of those whom you are arguing with.
I think you are embarrassed because it is truly indefensible, but I’d sure like to see you try. You literally believe this:
God had to send himself to be sacrificed to pay himself off as a ransom for the sins of his perfect creation that he made incapable of following his rules and incapable of not sinning… all because he was incapable of simply forgiving his creation… all to save his creations from an afterlife of torture and misery that he himself created.
It sounds ridiculous because it is. You can’t deny that’s what you believe though.
Even your description of what I believe is sadly misrepresenting the truth in the language you use. You are explaining it in a Modalistic sort of way to confuse the persons of the Trinity and are missing some pretty key doctrinal points that fill in the gaps you created in your description. What you said sounds ridiculous because Christian theologians are very careful in the language used to describe how these doctrines interact in order to provide clarity. You are an uncareful person and are being so purposefully in order to make the Christian faith sound preposterous to rational persons. As a rational person, I can tell you that your description falls way short, and it does so either on purpose (because you are a liar) or because you are simply ignorant of the details that you pretend to be an expert on for the sake of discussion.
quote:First, I didn't say all atheists reject Jesus when they haven't heard of Him specifically. The Father is revealed in creation, and everyone knows there is a God precisely because He shows Himself to be God in the creation He made, including in us, who are His image-bearers, whom He created to worship Him, so we have an innate desire to worship. Our sinful nature blinds us from the truth and we naturally desire to worship false idols and gods rather than the true God of the universe.
You have deluded yourself completely retarded with your vicious circular logic. I guess you are referring to Romans 1:19-20 “there’s no such thing as atheists”. It is downright stupid - I’m sorry - but idiotic to believe that atheists and all the adherents of the other religions really believe in Jesus but reject him for whatever dumb reason you can invent (they just want to sin!). Think about this - if we/they knew Jesus was really divine and that rejecting him would send us to an eternity of torture, how could we/they be anything but Christian?
Secondly, and related to the first point, the sinful nature of mankind prevents him from wanting to worship the true God in the right way. You act as if you don' know that Jesus is God and that rejecting Him will end in an eternity of torture for you. You've been told that by me specifically many, many times. You are without an excuse. It's not that you haven't heard it and don't know it, but that you reject it. You and other atheists have said the same sorts of things: even if the God of the Bible existed, you wouldn't worship Him because you believe He is cruel, sadistic, and unworthy of your worship. So even if you believed in His existence, you would be on equal footing with Satan, who knows God exists but refuses to bow down to Him and submit to Him as God. It's not an intellectual issue, but a moral one. You need a heart change.
quote:It's not silly at all. I hate all false gods and false targets of worship. In the OT, God detests idols of wood and stone, not because the gods exist (in spite of your insistence that the Bible teaches that they are), but because He hates idolatry, which is worship that belongs to God being directed anywhere else. Yes, I hate the concept of Zeus, Allah, or even the false Jesus of Mormonism, because such things draw worship away from the true God of the universe and people are led to their destruction by refusing to bend their knees to only true King of kings.
Stop it.
You HATE Zeus, and Thor, and Ahura Mazda, and Ra, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You hate them and are rejecting them though you know they are real and that they created you. They will judge you and you will have to answer to them. You hate that don’t you.
Sounds silly, doesn’t it?
The God of creation exists. You were created by Him to reflect His image to the rest of creation. Your rejection of your maker is not "silly", even if you have deluded and deceived yourself so much that you can't even admit what is in your heart of hearts.
This post was edited on 3/26/24 at 9:59 am
Posted on 3/25/24 at 9:08 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Why do you lie and misrepresent my beliefs? Are you so intellectually dishonest that you can't accurately express to others what I've expressed to you many times in the past?
Remember that foo believes that abortion, infanticide, and murder of innocent women, children, and animals is morally justified.
quote:Rebellion against the creator of the universe and refusal to fulfill His demands as your maker is not merely a "thought crime".
He thinks it is morally justified for you to be tortured for eternity, not based on your actions or works, but based on a lack of belief - a thought crime.
Seriously, are you purposefully lying or are you so confused about Christian theology that you can't accurately explain it to others?
Posted on 3/26/24 at 7:53 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
How so? The Bible claims the universe (heavens and earth) had a beginning. Science confirms that. You deny it, and cling to your oscillating universe theory.
The only thing I’m clinging to is the scientific method. Please don’t conflate or confuse theories with hypotheses.
It does make sense to me that if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that even before the beginning of cosmic inflation (whether it was a big bang singularity or not) matter and energy must’ve existed.
quote:
Even if the multiverse, or the oscillating universe theories were true, the illogical nature of infinity past necessitates a beginning.
Everything that exist must have a cause you say. Will you flip flop? What caused your god?
quote:
Love that!I agree. And, I suppose that makes you the “science bitch.”
Yeah I guess so
quote:
in a closed system
Fallacious
quote:
you can’t prove the premise wrong.
And you can prove the FSM didn’t give your Adonai a golden shower.
quote:
seemingly inexplicable similarities between creation and flood accounts
On the contrary, they are very easy to explain. Hebrew creation myths mainly derive from ancient Sumerian and Canaanite myths, because Hebrews are simply a later branch of Canaanites (which is scientifically indisputed) and because the elites and scribes were imprisoned in Babylon for decades before returning to Judah.
quote:
Tower of Babel
Jewish exiles saw this massive incomplete tower unlike anything they’d ever seen. It was massive. Nebuchadnezzar decided to complete it using Jewish slave labor. The biblical story obviously never happened - but when the Jewish exiles arrived as slaves in babylon, they saw this massive tower that looked like construction was cancelled even though it was almost complete. Nebuchadnezzar had it completed and dedicated it to their deity Marduk, that was often referred to as “Bel” which meant “master” and was a cognate of “Baal” also “master” that YHWH was often called.
Jeremiah 51:44
quote:
And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and take out of his mouth what he has swallowed. The nations shall no longer flow to him; the wall of Babylon has fallen.
This is supposed to be coming straight out of YHWH’s mouth. The great Adonai is describing how he will punish the chief deity of Babylon. Deny it all you want, but the biblical authors believed Marduk was real. It makes little sense for Yahweh to state he will punish a god that doesn’t really even exist.
quote:
The fact that multiple cultures attest to the same events (albeit in different ways) only adds plausibility to the claim that they are all based in some truth, and that one of them is true. You can write it off as plagiarism and coincidence, but you most certainly cannot prove that claim
The ancient myths like the Enuma Elish were written over a thousand years before Genesis. Genesis myths are a direct copy of the Mesopotamian myths. Deny it all you want - we know you know those Mesopotamian myths so it makes you look unreasonable. There is no doubt that Genesis and the Mesopotamian creation and flood myths shared a common source and the Mesopotamian myths are most likely the source of Genesis. All it takes is for a sane person to read both and that’s all the proof that is needed, in my opinion.
If I were to re-write Forrest Gump, change Forrest’s name to Boudreaux, Jenny’s name to Clotile, and changed the football school to LSU, while keeping all the “Greenbow Alabama” scenes, people are going to know it’s plagiarism. That’s about what Genesis did especially the flood story.
What did early civilizations have in common? Rivers. Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Olmecs, and China all had rivers. What do rivers do periodically? They flood. That is the common denominator. That’s why they all have localized flood accounts. They all became the most powerful empires in their region, and when they conquered other peoples, the conquered peoples adopted their literature.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 7:55 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Capybara and beaver are okay, btw. The church considers them seafood.
Hippo's also. They're water creatures.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 8:43 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Catholics don't recognize the Bible alone
Where did Jesus Himself tell you to embrace the Protestant Edited Bible Alone and ignore the rest of The Word of God?
The Gospel of John says that The Word of God is Jesus Himself, and Jesus left us His Church. He didn't leave any written materials - only His Church.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 8:46 am to Champagne
quote:
Where did Jesus Himself tell you to embrace the Protestant Edited Bible Alone and ignore the rest of The Word of God?
They also seem to miss a big thing Jesus said:
“Do this in memory of me”
Posted on 3/26/24 at 8:55 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
How so? The Bible claims the universe (heavens and earth) had a beginning. Science confirms that. You deny it, and cling to your oscillating universe theory. The only thing made of straw is your ability to reason beyond your own presuppositions.
I agree science and the bible support a clear beginning. But honestly even if it didn't I would still believe in God. Philosophically there must be some type of unmoved, uncaused, causer. Even in this instance something must sustain the infinite regress in existence. (I need to read more on this, is an infinite regress impossible, as in the universe logically must be finite or, if an infinite regress does exist, it can only exist with the presence of an uncaused, unmoved being, what we normally call God.)
I think of Thomas Aquinas when he says that movers can't go on for infinity but rather there must be some type of unmoved moved, the same for causes, and all of the five ways.
While I need to brush up on my philosophy, I know that even if an unending universe did exist, this wouldn't disprove the need for an existence of God. Something must in a sense uphold the existence of all things. I'm sure our atheists friends will laugh at this but I trust what Thomas Aquinas says and has reasoned over what some random atheist has said on a message board!
Posted on 3/26/24 at 9:24 am to DVA Tailgater
Yes, and on this Holy Thursday, we will celebrate the evening of The Last Supper, which was the very first Holy Mass.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 3/26/24 at 9:26 am to Champagne
quote:I'll ask again: can you provide me a written list of the teachings and doctrines that Jesus passed down to His Apostles that they, in turn, passed down to the churches they established? I'm not asking for materials written by Jesus, Himself that were passed down, only a list of the doctrines and teachings that were given to the early church (first generation). I'm not interested in "developed doctrine" that came over hundreds and thousands of years, but only those kernels of teaching that were expressly given to the Church early on. The RCC has dogmas that they require Christians to believe, so I'd like to see where all of those required doctrines were expressly taught by those who received them from the Apostles.
Where did Jesus Himself tell you to embrace the Protestant Edited Bible Alone and ignore the rest of The Word of God?
The Gospel of John says that The Word of God is Jesus Himself, and Jesus left us His Church. He didn't leave any written materials - only His Church.
The reason why I ask this is because Jesus did teach many things to His disciples, but my contention is that only that which was recorded in the Scriptures are what is necessary for the Church to know and believe. Just as Abraham, Moses, David, and the Prophets said and did many more things than what were recorded in the Scriptures, God preserved only those things necessary for the Church in the OT of the Bible (and some in the NT, as well), and Jesus held the people accountable to the written Scriptures as the highest authority, not the oral traditions. Likewise, I believe the NT Scriptures were preserved for the Church as our only infallible authority, and whatever was orally passed down is not authoritative as the Scriptures are.
The practical issue I'm attempting to draw out with my question to you is this: we have the Scriptures (for the sake of argument, I'll include the Apocrypha, though my argument doesn't depend upon it being Scripture in this sense). We have God's Word written down and it is authoritative. It doesn't change. We are not to add to it or take from it. It's there and has been preserved for the Church for 2,000 years, since the time of the Apostles. However, we don't have an infallible list of teachings and doctrines that were given to the first generation of the Church from the Apostles. We don't have a list of teachings and doctrines written down from the oral tradition by the early Church. All we have is written teachings and doctrines hundreds and thousands of years later based on supposed oral traditions. Because we don't have that list, we don't actually know what Jesus and the Apostles taught authoritatively for the Church to know and believe that differs from the written Scriptures.
Again, we have the Scriptures from the beginning, but we don't have the (list of) oral traditions from the beginning. Because of this, I can't trust if fallible men are making things up and binding the consciences of Christians with man-made doctrines in the name of Christ like the Pharisees and leaders of Israel were doing during the time of Christ's ministry. The only thing I know for sure is that the Scriptures are God's Word, breathed out by Him by His Spirit, and those are definitely authoritative, infallible, and unchanging. You are asking (telling, really) me and all non-Catholic Christians to submit ourselves to an authority (the oral traditions) that cannot even be historically validated like the Scriptures can be. So you need to show me where anything other than the Scriptures are God-breathed and that the early Church received the same doctrines and teachings that the RCC teaches today, even in "kernel form". I'd like to see that list so I can have confidence that the Apostles actually taught something that I'm being required to believe as a Christian. From what I can tell in history, many of the dogmas that the RCC has pronounced were utterly unknown to the early Church, and others had vast disagreements.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 9:28 am to DVA Tailgater
quote:I hear that every time I come to the Lord's Table for the sacrament of Communion. Jesus told His disciples to perform that sacrament in memory of Him, and that's precisely what we do. That statement was recorded in the Bible, so we honor the command in our church.
They also seem to miss a big thing Jesus said:
“Do this in memory of me”
Posted on 3/26/24 at 9:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The reason why I ask this is because Jesus did teach many things to His disciples, but my contention is that only that which was recorded in the Scriptures are what is necessary for the Church to know and believe.
Why would you replace your own "contention" and judgement for that of Jesus Himself? When He left a Church, that Church embodied what He practiced and taught.
Why would you replace that with a truncated Bible that Martin Luther and John Calvin edited, when a more complete Bible was officially adopted by Christendom in the 4th Century?
Why do you place your faith in the opinions and doctrines of these men, Luther and Calvin, instead of the Church that Christ founded?
Where is the list of things that Christ bequeathed to us that isn't in your truncated and Calvin-edited Bible? Well, I guess you'll have to read a Catholic Bible and the Catholic Catechism to find out. The list is in those places.
It's pretty much the same Bible, except for about 7.5 books of the Old Testament. But these books were part of the Holy Bible for over Ten Centuries before Luther and Calvin ripped them out by their own Will and replaced their "Word" for God's Word.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 9:58 am to FooManChoo
quote:
We have God's Word written down and it is authoritative.
The Gospel of John teaches us that Jesus Christ is The Word of God. He left us with a Church. That Church wrote and compiled the Holy Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit. This is the written part of The Word of God, but Christ's Church prospered and grew for centuries before most people could read and afford to purchase the written part of God's Word.
So, for centuries, millions of Christians were Saved through Christ's Church. Millions of them could not read, so they never read the Bible. Even if they could read, they could not afford to purchase even one book of the Bible. Back then, Bibles were copied by handwriting in monasteries by Catholic Monks.
The Christians learned of the Bible and God's Word from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself and the Readings from the Bible that are part of every Mass.
All of these components of God's Word are authoritative. Why do you insist on ripping out such a huge part of God's Word and replacing it with the "Word" of Luther and Calvin?
This post was edited on 3/26/24 at 10:01 am
Posted on 3/26/24 at 10:00 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:That's actually not what is being argued. That which began to exist must have had a cause. God never began to exist (because He has always existed), and therefore He does not have (or need) a cause.
Everything that exist must have a cause you say. Will you flip flop? What caused your god?
Posted on 3/26/24 at 10:10 am to FooManChoo
Christ commanded you to follow and join in Unity with His Church.
Calvin and Luther edited the Bible, creating their "word" to replace God's Word. Then they declared Christ's Church to be fundamentally false. THEN they invented a New Church that they instituted to replace Christ's Church.
And you wonder why I don't trust Calvin and Luther? These men who erased over 1,500 years of Christendom with a New Church, created in their own vision and image?
No thanks. I trust Jesus. You go ahead and place your faith and trust in Calvin, Luther, Zwingli or whomever else you choose.
Generations of Christians have been led astray by Calvin and Luther - so many of them such wonderful people. I'm sure that God will find a way to place them in Heaven.
Calvin and Luther edited the Bible, creating their "word" to replace God's Word. Then they declared Christ's Church to be fundamentally false. THEN they invented a New Church that they instituted to replace Christ's Church.
And you wonder why I don't trust Calvin and Luther? These men who erased over 1,500 years of Christendom with a New Church, created in their own vision and image?
No thanks. I trust Jesus. You go ahead and place your faith and trust in Calvin, Luther, Zwingli or whomever else you choose.
Generations of Christians have been led astray by Calvin and Luther - so many of them such wonderful people. I'm sure that God will find a way to place them in Heaven.
This post was edited on 3/26/24 at 10:14 am
Posted on 3/26/24 at 10:26 am to FooManChoo
Nope, his argument was that everything that exists must have a cause.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 10:39 am to FooManChoo
quote:quote:Why do you lie and misrepresent my beliefs? Are you so intellectually dishonest that you can't accurately express to others what I've expressed to you many times in the past?
Remember that foo believes that abortion, infanticide, and murder of innocent women, children, and animals is morally justified.
Whoops, I forgot that you believe the killing of innocent women, children, babies, and animals is not murder, when it is god-sanctioned. You believe that the killing of women, children, and babies is morally justified sometimes, particularly when “God” commands it. Please accept my apologies, now that I have corrected and clarified.
quote:quote:Rebellion against the creator of the universe and refusal to fulfill His demands as your maker is not merely a "thought crime". Seriously, are you purposefully lying or are you so confused about Christian theology that you can't accurately explain it to others?
He thinks it is morally justified for you to be tortured for eternity, not based on your actions or works, but based on a lack of belief - a thought crime.
Why are you accusing me of lying when you are outright admitting that I am correct. You want to argue a thought crime isn’t a thought crime. Call it what you want but what I said is 100% correct and you know it. You believe it is morally justified to torture someone for all eternity because they didn’t believe in your magic man. You don’t see it as not believing though - you consider it a rejection of truth (an argument based on pure stupidity).
Posted on 3/26/24 at 12:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Even your description of what I believe is sadly misrepresenting the truth in the language you use.
Nope, it is a summary of your core beliefs and you know it.
quote:
What you said sounds ridiculous
And it is what you believe.
quote:
The Father is revealed in creation, and everyone knows there is a God precisely because He shows Himself to be God in the creation He made
Except he is not revealed and everything you said is bullshite.
quote:
He created to worship Him, so we have an innate desire to worship
Yeah he is a very needy, jealous god, like a teenage girl. An evil, needy, jealous teenage girl.
quote:
He is cruel, sadistic, and unworthy of your worship
We agree for once
quote:
In the OT, God detests idols of wood and stone, not because the gods exist (in spite of your insistence that the Bible teaches that they are), but because He hates idolatry, which is worship that belongs to God being directed anywhere else.
Oh no, you ain’t getting out of this one so easy.
Ephesians 6:12
quote:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Who the hell is Paul talking about. The archons - the evil powers and forces in the sky in the heavenly realm?
Psalm 89
quote:
5Let the heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones! 6For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings is like the LORD, 7a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones, and awesome above all who are around him? 8O LORD God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O LORD, with your faithfulness all around you?
The ancient goat herders certainly believed the heavens were filled with other beings - very powerful beings - which is who YHWH is being compared to.
What is Adonai going to do to these other gods? Let’s find out from Psalm 82…
quote:
1God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
6 said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
7nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
8Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!
So Adonai will take his place amongst the gods and will judge his brothers. They are all sons of the most high including Adonai, so they are held to a high standard, but the best and most powerful of El Elyon’s sons (YHWH/Adonai) will judge the others and kill them and will inherit all the nations. What are they talking about - inheriting the nations?
Oh yeah they are referring to Deuteronomy 32:8-9. Let’s check it out.
quote:
8When the Most High (El Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (El Elyon).
9But the LORD’s (YHWH) portion is his people, Jacob (Israel) his allotted heritage.
So Yahweh first inherits Israel (as your father and he’ll tell ya!), but eventually he will judge all the other gods and kill them off and will rule all the nations.
But are there any other examples of Yahweh judging the other gods in scripture? Not merely false gods, but rendering judgement on real gods who really existed, and did not act properly (psalm 82) and were deserving of judgement and death? Hell yes there are. Let me show you.
Exodus 12:12
quote:
For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.
He’s judging gods who the author believes really existed. It would make no sense to exact judgement on non-existent things. And these Egyptian gods are gods, not people. Elohim live in the heavens. Yahweh is judging the Elohim of Egypt.
Jeremiah 51:44
quote:
And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and take out of his mouth what he has swallowed. The nations shall no longer flow to him; the wall of Babylon has fallen.
As I previously mentioned, “Bel” was what the Babylonians called their master Marduk (their chief god).
God is simply incapable of revealing himself, because he doesn’t exist.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 10:46 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
The only thing I’m clinging to is the scientific method.
Oh sure, sure. But, more specifically, you cling to materialistic naturalism- which requires you to dismiss any possible explanation of phenomena that is not materialistic- truth be damned. If it doesn’t fit your presupposed worldview, then you must dismiss it out of hand. Quite narrow. It’s like a person who suffers from aquaphobia denying the existence of fish, because you don’t find them in the trees.
quote:
It does make sense to me that if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that even before the beginning of cosmic inflation (whether it was a big bang singularity or not) matter and energy must’ve existed.
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed within the already created, closed system of the universe. The laws of physics, although they do very well to describe the universe, are limited to just that. If time, space and matter all came into existence, simultaneously, and the laws of physics describe their existence and interaction, then it logically follows that whatever brought them into existence (ex nihilo) could not possibly consist of time, space and matter, and, therefore, could not be described using the laws of physics.
quote:
Everything that exist must have a cause you say. Will you flip flop? What caused your god?
You’re either intentionally misrepresenting the premise, or you have the philosophical chops of a 3rd grade special ed student. The premise is that whatever begins to exist, must have a cause. God, being a spaceless, timeless, immaterial Being who is, by nature, eternal and infinite- needs no explanatory cause. And, our uniform and repeated experience informs us that literally everything within our closed system universe- began to exist.
quote:
Yeah I guess so
Thank you for not being offended by my un-Christ-like humor. It’s one of the reasons I really enjoy our conversations.
quote:
Fallacious
How so? It seems to me, that a universe in which matter can neither be created nor destroyed- is quite closed indeed.
quote:
And you can’t prove the FSM didn’t give your Adonai a golden shower.
FIFY. Nice deflection.
I’ll take the W and move on. quote:
On the contrary, they are very easy to explain. Hebrew creation myths mainly derive from ancient Sumerian and Canaanite myths, because Hebrews are simply a later branch of Canaanites (which is scientifically indisputed
Well, I’m pretty sure that’s not even a word, but I know what you meant. I’d like to know more. Please post a link. Anyway, the Hebrews descended from Abraham. Into the land of Canaan. Surprise- not all of his descendants (much less all of Noah’s descendants) are children of the promise. It’s plausible to assume that those who did not follow YHWH would make up their own stories. Yet, God preserved His Word, and His promise, from the line of Adam, through Noah, through Abraham, through David all the way to Jesus- who opened up salvation to all. All these other “similar” myths, whether earlier or later, only serve to strengthen the case that one of them is true. And I find it quite compelling that the Biblical account is the only one of them that is still believed by billions of people across many cultures throughout thousands of years of people like you devoting themselves to its demise.
quote:
This is supposed to be coming straight out of YHWH’s mouth. The great Adonai is describing how he will punish the chief deity of Babylon
How is the church of Marduk doing these days? For that matter, where are any of the false gods of antiquity? My God is alive and well. Hmmm… interesting.
You will often say that the burden of proof rests with the theist. I agree. But, all the theist has to prove, is that it is plausible and rational- which is easy enough to do. The atheist has to prove that it is impossible (which, coincidentally, is impossible). The peculiar thing is, that atheists think, somehow, that it is the job of the theist present an argument that will change their minds for them. As though the only reason they believe that there is no God, and the Bible is fiction- is purely an intellectual matter. This is so obviously false, as evidenced by the fact that many of the most intelligent people in the world are Christians. Yet, also many of the most intelligent are atheists. Conversely, many Christians and atheists alike are low IQ, glue sniffing, crayon eating mouth breathers. So, if intelligence is not the common denominator of only one side or the other- what is? The desires of the heart- a free will decision to accept or reject the Lordship of a worthy God.
Pride is the common denominator of atheism.
Posted on 3/26/24 at 11:09 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
I agree science and the bible support a clear beginning. But honestly even if it didn't I would still believe in God.
Me too!
quote:
is an infinite regress impossible
Yes. If there were an infinite number of days preceding today, then you would have to cross an infinite number of days to get to today- which is logically impossible.
quote:
as in the universe logically must be finite
Logically, the universe must have a finite beginning, but can be eternal from that beginning. There is nothing illogical about an infinite future- only an infinite past/regress.
quote:
While I need to brush up on my philosophy, I know that even if an unending universe did exist, this wouldn't disprove the need for an existence of God. Something must in a sense uphold the existence of all things.
Philosophy aside, I recommend you check out Stephen C Meyer for the best case for Intelligent Design. The fine tuning of the universe is quite compelling.
quote:
I'm sure our atheists friends will laugh at this but I trust what Thomas Aquinas says and has reasoned over what some random atheist has said on a message board!
I’m sure they will. That’s fine. I count it all joy. Besides, it’s ok for us to laugh at them too. For instance, you should go back and read the posts where certain people on this board tried to explain how when Dawkins said “ Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose” that he didn’t really mean that life appears to be designed.
Uh oh- I bet I kicked the hornet’s nest
Page 18 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News