Ask a Catholic
Offline 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 
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
- Login to post comments
It is not retrobution. It is the consequence of your choice. Either you choose God who is all love and all perfection or you choose against it.
Changing our minds about love is an imperfection of ours not 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
I hate to end the discussion with you, but I am afraid I may have too. It is not because I want to by any means. It is because you cannot even accept a basic demonstrable fact:
All finite things have a beginning.
I have demonstrated this several times. I will do so again. Take this conversation, this thread, this forum, this webpage, the internet, your computer, my computer, and etc. I know all began to exist at one point in time. This is fact demonstrably, empirically, scientifically, and logically. I'm going to assume none of this will do because I cannot show you every finite thing's beginning.
If you do not accept this either because of antagonistic, sarcastic, or whatever _____ reasons the conversation is over.
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
Actually the sentances make sense when put in context yes. However, they do not make sense as a cogent argument against 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
I am sorry you left the Church. Perhaps I can help you come back Home given God's grace of course.
Why do I consider the Pope correct about what? You will have to be more sepcific.
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
It would be pride if I was saying, "I am perfect" or "I am God's Church." However, I am not. I am relaying the Truth to you.
Would it prideful for me to say, "It is the truth that all electrons are negatively charged." Of course under your logic I'm saying, "What nerve you denier !!! How dare you question the charge of an electron. How dare you question it's existence !!! ? Electrons need not show you their charge!!!!"
Either let's discuss the issue(s) or not. The sinde remarks need to stop please.
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
We can disucss one of these issues if you like. After we finish our previous discussion. Please stay on topic. Butting into another person's conversation is inappropriate. I know it's a forum and you can do whatever you want, but it becomes confusing for myself and others when I am responding to 2 people about 3 different topics.
I am sorry about the waiting time. I do have things to do. I cannot answer every one of these responses when the come up all the time. I try to answer 2-3 a day but sometimes life gets busy.
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
that is definitively not a fact and i have shown you why. it is a metaphysical proposition. your analogy about your computer etc. is fallacious because nothing materially new was created. existing material was modified to fit a human conception. we have never observed anything just pop into being out of nothing. everything has either evolved or been modified. the necessity of a beginning or cause is one of aristotle's most clumsy axioms. as both vastet and i keep explaining to you:
1. infinity has never been observed, therefore "finite" is just as theoretical a term as "infinite,"
2. no "beginning of matter" has ever been observed, nor has it even been postulated by modern theoretical physics; even the big bang is not truly a "beginning," only the mother of all alterations,
3. a fact is something falsifiable in theory. i would hope even you can easily see how "all finite things have a beginning" is not falsifiable.
"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
So you're a liar. You say it's a demonstrable fact yet you can't accept the inherent incoherency of the statement itself, AND you've failed to demonstrate the 'fact' you say is demonstrable.
See what iwbiek said also, since he put it down better than me
Not even once actually. I refuted every example you've given, and I'll continue to do so.
Yet none of this is everything, none of it is yet proven to be finite, and all of it other than the conversation itself already existed in some other form. The conversation is apparently the first thing you'll prove to be finite, by ending it. But proving a conversation is finite means shit. You can't compare a conversation to the universe.
You can't even show me one physical things beginning.
So I'm right, I win.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Good.
Apparently we have. I won.
I am on topic. In fact, since I responded to you, if I'm off topic then you went off topic first.
I didn't butt in to anything. I addressed points noone else did or did so in a way noone else did. And I only did so because you decided to ignore me and respond to everyone else, If anyone is being inappropriate, it's you.
Noone else is confused, and if you'd responded in a timely and courteous manner it wouldn't have happened anyway.
More lies. Today so far you've made 6 replies. And I waited almost two months just for you to officially ignore everything I said. If this is the way you treat others you have no right asking them to be polite to you.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Nice to know that god considers your computer problems more important than the thousands of people dying from ebola. Obviously, he has his priorities in the right order. Perhaps if you hadn't prayed, god would have time, but since you did pray, and you are so important, he just had to fix your annoyance first.
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
Okay. Either I was not clear enough or you are misunderstanding my point about miracles, faith, and the need for works.
I am not saying antibiotics do not work unless you beleive they do. I am saying that antibiotics only work if you take them, and that by taking them you are trusting or believing they will work. You generally do not take medicine without some modicum of trust that it will work. In otherwords just accepting that antibiotics or Jesus is real will not save you from your problem. You must act on that faith in the case of medicine take it. In the case of Christ ask, seek, and serve Him, make an act of the will.
There is no contradiction of this theology in the Bible. The verses in Judges uphold this idea. In Judges Barak does not do the whole work and therefore does not fully believe. Deborah on the otherhand does all the works and thus believes fully.
In Luke what you have is God peforming a miracle for Malchus not only to heal him but as a sign to His disciples to learn peace and the need for Christ to be arrested and crucified. You are right there is no mention of an act of the will from Malchus, but there is also no mention of a lack of action. Regardless, God can perfrom miracles even if no one believes. In other words God's ability to do miracles is independent of people's beliefs or actions.
How does this not contradict Mark 6:5 you might be wondering. Well there is one major reason. It has to do with the nature of miracles. Miracles' main purposes are the glory of God and the good of men. Miracles are signs performed by God to appeal to our intelligence (faculty of thought). In the case of Mark 6:5 miracles were performed in the presence of Christ's fellow countrymen to show His divinity but many disbelieved and took no action to try to believe. God showed them His purpose and they rejected it. Thus He did not do anymore miracles not because He could not but because they would not serve God's purpose.
On to Ezekiel 14:9. Yes, it says, "As for the prophet, if he is beguiled into speaking a word, I, the LORD, shall have beguiled that prophet; I will stretch out my hand against him and root him out of my people Israel." However, it does not mean God is directly causing the deception. This a Hebrew writing style. To the Hebrews all things were in God's plan thus nothing that happened, happened without His knowledge and permission. Intermediate causes existed and were recognized by the Hebrews but ultimately it was all in God's will. Thus you have the shorthand of God is behind it because it is His plan. It is a short way of saying God allows or permits the deception of others by the false prophet.
You can ignore and not believe in the Catholic Church, the Apostles, the writings of the Saints and Fathers, Deposit of the Faith, and proven historical foundations of the Church. This would be choosing ignorance. If you are going to read and understand the Bible like anything else you should learn about the context, its language, the writers, and the history referenced in it. In other words do not expect the Bible to explain itself and don't expect everything about the Faith to be in the Bible. The Bible itself warns against it as did Christ, and His Church.
This is obvious in any other secular area, like when reading Shakespeare or Dickens with other aides like Elizabethian dicticonaires, a study of history, etc.
As to the topic suggestions. You do not have to pick one of them. I merely suggested them, because they are usually sticking points with atheists and many atheists discuss them.
As an aside you are waaaaay off on your understanding of all those topics. I would love to correct you on each one, one at a time. But choose which ever topic 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
Re :: I am miles away from this current part of this conversation in this thread. . .
............................... Does that include watching as false accusations (or groundless accusations or unfounded accusations or false allegations or false claims) are BEING made antagonistically towards the innocence, (by the brethren no less) ??!!?
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor'' that the ninth commandment
"But for the fearful and unbelieving and abominable and murderers .. and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
____
The previous day or two before, that he had ridden into Jerusalem on the back of a young donkey. Wasn't it Jesus himself who was confronted and accused ?
You cannot begin to conjecture about which beliefs are held, not in such a forum, and what are flatly rejected. Don't we all find an interesting point in this our text in the portion of the Gospel according to Saint Mark Ch. 11:27-33:
The Text:
"And they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, and the chief priests, and scribes and elders came to Him, and began saying to Him, 'By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do these things?' And Jesus said to them, 'I will ask you one question, and you answer me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? Answer Me." And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'from heaven,' He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' But shall we say, 'From men?'-they were afraid of the multitude, for all considered John to have been a prophet indeed. And answering Jesus, they said, 'We do not know.' And Jesus said to them, 'Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Lol 0ff-site ::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5KdOH7SrjQ {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5KdOH7SrjQ}
Okay no disagreement then. Any questions?
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
Pick one topic please. I do one topic at a time with each poster so as not to confuse myself and everyone else reading the thread.
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
Huh? I went point by point down YOUR list in post 111. So either it is all the same topic, or you are a liar and you do more than one topic at a time. But don't mind me, I'm just the peanut gallery in this thread doing a little heckling for kicks and giggles. You should probably focus on Vastet as he is treating you rather seriously and has raised some good points that you summarily ignored. If you took it serious, you just might learn something.
Although, I am noticing a pattern, this is the second time you have refused to respond to any substance on the grounds that it isn't on topic when it is a point by point reference of your own post. You have also refused to respond 2 or 3 times on the basis that you were "offended" by something rather innoculous. My conclusion given the evidence is that when you are confronted with an argument of any depth is that you simply evade it.
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
Please pick one topic. So far you've asked for what the definition of Christianity is, its purpose, Papal authority, and incorrectly commented on papal elections. Please pick one topic to discuss.
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
More snide insults, fantastic. What is their purpose? This forum is about debating theist claims and atheist claims. This thread is specfically about asking a Catholic questions about the Catholic faith. If you wish to show off your ability to sling back handed insults do it in one of the other forums. I came here to do what this site claims to do, have a rational conversation about theism and atheism.
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
The Church says nothing of the sort in any remote way. Pick one topic and I will gladly discuss it with.
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
Pick one topic. I will gladly discuss it with you. Discussing multiple topics with one person is confusing enough not including all the others here in the thread.
You are misunderstanding my remarks on empiricism so I would be delighted to discuss that. Or we could discuss what the definition of God is. While I did not give a definition I did clearly define His necessary qualities. The question about God's defintion was not posed by me or by anyone. I beleive digitalbeachbum asked "Why your god?". I answered the question.
Again one topic at a time.
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
I'm seriously considering going to the administration to see about getting you a troll badge at this point. You are asking people to be polite and then being rude yourself. You're telling people to pick a topic when they're all interrelated, as demonstrated by every conversation you've taken part in. You keep telling people to pick a topic instead of picking one yourself, and you keep bringing up multiple topics in a display of hypocrisy. And you're quoting the bible as if it were solid proof of your claims, which is circular logic.
I don't think you have any interest in debate. I think you're just proselytising and ignoring anything that doesn't explicitly conform in some way to your expectations. Maybe I'm wrong, and because of that possibility I'm giving you this warning about my intentions. You are not obligated to speak to anyone or respond to anyone in particular, but if your responses to people are going to continue to be dismissive and rude and trollish then you'll leave me no alternative.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The Catholic troll Cliff Jumper doesn't like the answers he's getting from the atheists. I would love for Cliff Jumper to spend a week or so debating with our resident Protestant Calvinist troll Jean Chauvin. Two defenders of "God" each attempting to defeat the other with their endless passive-agressive answers. Hilarious !
Cliff-jumper ::
Amateur!!
Man, Pa/TWD39 went on a time or twelve about the 'rude fashion' in which 'she' was being treated .. and went on and on and on about "more snide insults", remember the sock-puppet queen. I know a thing or twelve about being treated rudely and outside of one former catholic ("I" was NEVER a catholic, Byzantine or Alexandrian or Roman ..myself), you clearly don't know what "rude" is bub !!
Now here's the great( -er,est ) injustice brought to light in that you have no clue who you're even talking with. Take a look around the board before you go by what you see in a single post in a single thread.
Funny thing is people dont appreciate this as you can see from the quote. It's well-established this is a ploy to consistently and willfully change the subject. Nice try.
On - site (0 n l y)
going to find is--no one here is going to believe you. I can see you're trying to do a good deed by infroming others of your beliefs. What you have to understand is -alI here already have their beliefs--and---you'll have to prove you're right. That will take forensic and/or psychological evidence. IE- if "God" is a super human non material existing phenomenon, you have nothing to put under a microscope or on a weitght scale to show. On the other hand --the only thing left would be psycology. If you have no psycological facts to present then how do you prove your information. IF, you can express or present psycological facts associated with God then you may have something. Again-IE, what mental factors does God impose or create withion society or people--or any person. Any proofs of God can only come mental (psychological) evidence.
Presenting a material universe as proof simply can't do it, as what is seen or undestood to the members of the forums here (in essence) that no God is needed to create material. (depending upon one's understanding of God) So, how do you prove your case. I find it very hard to see that one person (a Pope) is infallible --and if so-that would mean he knows everything, and would be the same as an all knowing all seeing God/entity. If that were true then what use (or sense) would there be for any need of a God when an infallible person would do. OK, you could say that God needs an earthly mouthpiece. But now, wait a minute--says who. Thsi just seems to show up at a time in history wihtout proof or resonable ashowing that --that was/is actually the case. IF, there were any infallibility connected , how can it be that church leaders believed at one time that the earth was phlat. ----simple--they never were physicists. Don't you suppose that if the infallibility factor were true they would have known all about physics. The infallibility claim covers to many unexplainables and no physics. The main problems with past times religions is they have no real areas of expertise. God can only be explained from two factors, material, and spiritual/psychological. The middleage and darkage Europeans weren't very knowledgeable of either. I submit that this is what todays religions are still stuck in.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
Mhmm, we would probably reject this "psychological evidence" as fallacious anyways, depending on the specific argument. We'd probably just attribute it primarily to, as indicated by your own terminology, psychology, rather than any supernatural god.
People frequently cite an improvement in their lives or the lives of others as evidence for the truth of their religion. For example, a drug addict becomes born again, so he quits his bad habits, becomes involved in his church, and starts a family, becoming a positive force in his community. Some would say this demontrates the power of the holy spirit. I would say it's an anecdote and an example of confirmation bias, among other psychological and logical pitfalls, that convinces gullible people of the validity of beliefs that they desperately wanted to be true in the first place.
The best evidence would be if all members of a particular religious group was exemplary in some way, without exception. Unfortunately, it seems that such a group does not exist or this will often turn into a special pleading argument (e.g. he did that because he's not a real Christian). Even a difference of degree on one specific topic is really hard to pin down, like say, how much community service people do? And at the end of the day, you still have to prove causation rather than just correlation.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
understand, psycology is the study of person, or personality, personalities. In essence then, it's the study of people as relative to others or a society. When looking at the darkages it can be seen that belief was instituted by punishment tp persuade a person to change their mind. It gets right down to--someone having the means and powers to use force to change a mind--thus then--it's about (in their time) torture to tamper with a mind to make that mind in accordance to the mandates of an authority. In those times )and still with us today) it's about controling people and creating them into what the authourities want them to be and do. No matter how one looks at it--it's about the mind and in turn then, about the person. We see the person and psychcogy to be the same, as in, psychology "Is" the person. Also then, we see God (in biblical terms) as "People", becasue in the total end the book deals with people and their relationships with others, thus god then is "The powers of people"singular or enmass". To us then, the book is a book of Psychology, as it deals with the same aspects of person and what a person is. We don't find a super human anything or anyone in the book.
At one point during our study a psycho Smurf pointed out that he concluded--when he studies the mind he studies God, because in the all and all we see that studying people one is also studying God. That makes the biblical God then ---people and how they think, but mostly connects to social values as to "what" the social values of a society are based on. As you may guess, we see the book entirely different then what the present interpretations are. All have a good side and a bad side and capable of migrasteing to either depending upon the need or circumstance. We also find that there are no real Christians on the planet. Even us Old Seers don't regard ourselves as Christians. With the world as it is one cannot remain a Christain very long as the present social values don't permit it. One still has to deal with the world as it is. Even JC had to. In todays world still, the bad side rules--it's merely a matter of mind. Bear in mind that our world today was handed to us via previous generations and their mentality still rules. One has to consider, what did they kanow, and what did they give to the future generations--which are us. With their limited knowledge of things they couldn't have possibly got it right in terms of proper or positive relations within the masses.
Addition-9/10/14- In biblical terms the universe contains two basic things, the material and the spiritual. The material of course we all know about, and it's the spiritual that social problems originate from. Spritual is "person" and what comprises "person", and the characteristicsod person divides tweo ways--good and evil.The good and evil in biblical terms is what people's relations are based on. The books concern is--the goods and evils exacted upon each other--which in turn denotes the systems and terms unders which a society is comprised and exists. The book holds that a person is non material (as to whether that is correct or not is debatable) and invisible.
Good and evil are a matter of universal consequences for existing in a universe and a result of the universe itself, as, the universe has it's opposites. Where-as --the spiritual mimics the material universe in that --from what we do and thi9nk can be good or evil upon one's self and/or others. The book deals with these two mental concepts and forwars a remidy--the first of which is--to understand the phenomenon, and makes adjustments to exact as less harm of one upon another as possible. The universe of the mind then has it's goods and evils just as unavoidable as the material universe. This is what the books concern is of---to bring an understanding of what one does to bring about a good or evil upon one's self or others--called ---morals. Existing in a society has it's automatic goods and evils and it will always be so. The idea is--to have the individual reason before hand the consequences upn others of an act taken affecting or in conjuction with others--and to willfully refrain from the harm that a personal venture may cause to another. The systems in the world since civilization's institution is to do evil to bring about good--to one's self or others in one's own society at the expense of lessors or other civilizations or societies--thus creatiung a predatory system that eventually (via ignorance of the total outcome) destroys itself. A prdator /cpitalistic) society has nothing but each other to operte such a system on until there are only predators within the society. A pride of lions preying on itself eventually eliminates itself. (the results can be seen currently) What this incurrs is--a changi8ng of the mental condition--and that'sa matter of psychology--the workings of the mind. So--we are all a metality and not the physical itself. Changing the body won't change the social situation. No amount of material enterprise will change society's mental condition toward one another. Henery Ford,s automobile did not change the mental situation society is in still today. The social mentality of his day is still the same today, and, going back 20,000r more years. Material additions and chnges have not changes the person of over time.
The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers
Knowledge trumps faith and I'm not a Theist
Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth
Ah, it seems that your beliefs are quite different from, as you say, what the present interpretations are. In that case, much of what I said may not apply to arguments that you would make. I still don't think I would accept what you consider to be "psychological" evidence, although at this point, I don't quite understand your position.
Regardless, Cliff Jumper himself seems to be a fairly typical Catholic of the more indoctrinated flavor, based on what I've read so far. So, it would probably be productive for him to take my comments to heart, but I doubt he will. Would he even agree with you on what you consider to be evidence?
Edit: Will respond to your addition later today. Also, let's be careful to not get too off topic as this is Cliff Jumper's thread.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I was aware that I might be taking this off topic. I think I'll leave it be unless he responds.
Actually, on that note, I'll stop here as well, unless Cliff Jumper himself weighs in on it. I'm not really interested enough to start another thread on it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Let me try this again. God is perfect, omnipotent. immaterial, omnipresent, infinite, omni-just, omni-merciful, and etc. It is His nature, His very being is to be all these things. For example, it is the nature of macroni and cheese to have macaroni and cheese. If it lacks either one it is not macaroni and cheese. Thus if God lacked any of these natures He would not be God.
For us, humans, God created us perfect, but He loves us and He wants us to love Him. In order for that to happen we must choose Him. When we do not choose Him we invariably choose against Him. Without choice there can be no love.
You seem to be confusing two separate issues. One is perfection as the nature or intrinsic being of God. The other issue is humans being created perfect and with the ability to choose between perfection or imperfection so that we may love God.
As to the idea of "coercion" this is another misunderstanding. Are you being coerced when you are told by your boss the consequences of following or not following the company rules? When hired you are given an explanation of your salary and benefits (rewards), the rules to keep and obtain these rewards, and a list of fireable offenses (punishment). You then have the choice of following the rules and receiving the salary and benefits or not follow the rules and by direct result lose the salary and benefits.
Simply put there is no coercion merely the consequence of your own choice(s).
Your quote, ""Love me or I'll burn you alive" is a straw man argument.
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
Pick one 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
Just to let you know I've read your comments, and I will answer them. Please remember though there are others who are awaiting responses to their questions. As I said in the beginning I will answer each one in order of their appearance. Thank you for your patience.
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
wtf lol. This guy has a few screws loose.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Okay. If you want to ignore, facts, logic, reason, and other evidences and just go on with the same ignorant rant at least do it to some cool music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdYLQsGUEio
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
Are you wanting me to answer a question? Or are you just being funny?
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
Sure, no coercion involved ....like the when the Italian Mafia used to tell a business owner to either pay "protection" money or suffer the consequences of your own choice(s). It's the business owners fault if he doesn't pay ( his choice ) and he then gets beaten to a pulp. Yeah, no pressure, LOL !
What is Hell, a vacation resort ?
Fixing what cannot be fixed -- Off - site ::
The future started yesterday . . .
> Re:: You're eyes just looked straight through me.
To: Addressed To: Cliff Jumper
Isn't it clear there's a method to all the madness, be assured . . .
* Sigh *
The canonical Gospel according to Saint Mark Ch. 14 -- '' .. and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” But He kept silent and did not answer''
Who can make me feel this way? Nothing, "I" mean nothing ''I've'' said speaks to you as being that way nor caustic, K?
Gospel of Saint John -- 19:23-30 (NRSVCE):
When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it.” This was to fulfill what the scripture says,
“They divided my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.”
And that is what the soldiers did. Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then He bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
I would hope even you can easily see how all electrons are negatively charged is not falsifiable under your logic.
Let me try another example of a finite thing having a beginning.
Example: this thread, created 12 weeks and 5 days ago at 2:56 PM EST.
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
i certainly do not. the word "electron" is our name for a negatively charged subatomic particle that moves about the nucleus in the electron cloud. any subatomic particle that does not fulfill these criteria is not an electron. the names we give things are not scientific propositions. we do not arrive at them scientifically--in fact, according to ferdinand de saussure anyway, we arrive at them more or less arbitrarily. therefore, they don't fall under the criterion of falsifiability. if we ever discovered a positively charged subatomic particle in the electron cloud, it would not prove the existence of a positively charged electron. it would prove the existence of a totally new particle that we would invent a new name for. try again.
how do you know this thread is "finite"? what "infinite" object are you comparing it to?
"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
Yeah that's enough. Time to see about getting you a troll badge.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Oh don't let him off so easy! Lets have even more fun. How exactly is this topic even a thing?
noun
an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
an action, activity, event, thought, or utterance.
what is needed or required.
By definition, this topic isn't a thing, and therefore cannot be a finite thing.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I demonstrated it with the universe, matter, energy, myself, a rock, the earth, this thread.
From your own post you agree at least that all matter and energy in the universe is finite as you said, "No. The CMB merely shows a massive explosion occurred billions of years ago, and that all matter and energy known to exist lies within the radius of the shockwave of that explosion." Of course you promptly back track with a contradiction, "We don't know that all matter and energy was created in that explosion."
You even proved my point on the car, "If I take a car apart, it's still a car. It's just in pieces." So before it was a car, it was something(s) else. So it began to exist. Then as per the usual with atheists you back tracked again with relativist bull crap like, "Before it was a car, the pieces were linguistically defined as a collection of other objects, but then a car is composed of objects linguistically defined as something other than a car."
Under your very line of reasoning the same comments are true:
A rock is a human, is a star, is Transformer, is an ulna.
Because after all they are all just different summations of the same parts.
I never said the thread example was everything nor did I compare it to the universe.
"...and all of it other than the conversation itself already existed in some other form"
Again your line of logic is as follows: A rat is a star is an electron because it all exists in one form or the other.
Except you agreed I did with this, "The conversation is apparently the first thing you'll prove to be finite, by ending it. But proving a conversation is finite means shit."
Let's cut through the crap here.
What kind of proof is required for me to prove, "It is the inherent nature for a finite thing to have a beginning"? You say this thread as proof is not good enough. Your own admission of all matter and energy in the universe coming into existence at one point is not proof. So really what is? As near as I can gather nothing will do. Even if the evidence proves it you will find some relativistic nonsense way around it.
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
I apologize for going off topic.I did not ignore your comments. The reason I did not reply to them is because it would pointless to continue the discussion if we cannot even agree on a demonstrable fact.
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
Straw man argument and insults.
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
The points you responded to were a list I made trying to explain to Old Seer what the Church contributed to society. Old Seer and I were discussing the Church's purpose and how She has enacted it, not those 12 points specifically.
If you wish to discuss one of those points one at a time then by all means, let's go. If you are just here to heckle me then leave please. I'm trying to have a substantive conversation with others. Having to sift through heckling does not help my response time to serious responders.
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
Thus ends the thread. There is no more discussion to be had. Please have a good day.
I'll be looking for that troll badge though. I collect them
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
bravo. i'm doing this on a week of sleepless nights and a bottle of chianti. i'm afraid letting him off easy is the best i could muster.
"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
now you show some integrity.
"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
I refuted every example you gave.
I did no such thing.
That you think I contradicted myself in any way is a demonstration of your failure to comprehend what you read.
More reading comprehension failure.
Lol you're an idiot.
Correction: You're a complete idiot.
A conversation is not a physical thing, thus you still fail to demonstrate any physical thing being finite.
That would require banning you from the forum. But it's pretty hard to get banned here. You've not broken any laws or spammed commercial links, so you've not earned a ban. If you really want to cut through the crap, you'll have to leave voluntarily. Which would be unfortunate. Irrational theists such as yourself are the perfect example of why people should reject theism, and we want more of your kind, not less, posting on the forums.
You don't apparently have the capacity to understand the inherent incoherence of this statement.
This thread is not a physical object. And proving a physical object is finite doesn't prove all physical objects are finite. And proving all physical objects are finite doesn't prove the universe is finite. Not that it matters, since you can't even prove a physical object is finite.
I never said that, liar.
It really is sad when you take a theist right to the brink of understanding, and they never take the only step they have to take in order to finally comprehend.
An apology is nice, but I don't really want or need one. Just stop telling other people to do things a certain way when you won't. Nothing angers me more than blatant hypocrisy.
You have yet to provide a demonstrable fact.
Another one bites the dust after a humiliating defeat.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The semantics. It hurts.
If we include in the definition of "finite" the phrase, 'being limited in time,' then I suppose a physical 'thing' that is 'finite' would have a temporal 'beginning.' But then, that's just a tautology. After that, there are a number of issues that you need to work out, such as what is 'physical' or what might count as a 'beginning.' Additionally, you need to show that the universe and the matter and energy in the universe is all 'finite.'
Along the same lines that Vastet explained, the Big Bang theory states that our universe expanded from a singularity, but we don't know that it 'created' our universe since we don't know what happened immediately before the initial expansion. So, while many astrophysicists refer to this as a 'beginning,' it's not really a 'beginning' in the sense often employed by philosophers.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
i feel you, i do. the problem is, the OP isn't using "finite" in an ordinary language sense. he's using it in this very scholastic way, in contrast with "inifinite," to erroneously reinforce one of his ridiculous thomistic axioms. that's why i focus on it so much. yes, strictly speaking, finity exists, obviously. but infinity is still theoretical, therefore finity, juxtaposed with infinity, is still just as theoretical.
"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