|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholics are making it up. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It just goes to show that both you and the RCC can come to stupid conclusions if you start with stupid premises. The RCC seems to have decreed that fish was not the meat their tradition forbade, who am I to argue?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Forbidding meat was wrong at one time and eating meat was wrong at one time (according to you). The whole meat issue is ambiguous, which makes my point that "the Bible" is not monolithic. Forbidding meat is already wrong according to the Bible..."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Why? Where's the logic in that? The dividing line for good/evil was at the supposed "Fall", not at the Flood.
Meat wasn't for us to eat until after the Flood, that's very clear according to the Bible but since then we are free to eat meat. Faith writes:
Which you made up.
(I tend to think of this as related to the deterioration of the whole Creation after the Flood... Faith writes:
The supposed deterioration doesn't work as a reason for decreased longevity. Methuselah lived much longer than Adam.
... the decrease in longevity for instance that had preceded it.... Faith writes:
Which you made up.
... even though plants and animals would also have suffered some loss that might reduce their nutritional value... Faith writes:
As it would in the pre-Flood "Fallen" world.
... meat would probably have offered more nutrition to hard-working humanity in the Food-devastated world). Faith writes:
Which doesn't make a lick of sense. So AFTER THAT to forbid it is wrong according to the Bible. I don't see that we are REQUIRED to eat it, but forbidding it is clearly wrong."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Not only is it not "obvious", it's contrary to the evidence.
The deterioration after the Flood ought to be obvious for pete's sake. Faith writes:
That's both factually false and unscriptural.
...after the Flood the whole environment changed for the worse. Faith writes:
That's also completely made up. ... the idea is that before the Flood there was adequate nutrition in plant life, but afterward with the deterioration of all forms of life more was needed."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
The evidence shows that there has been no "deterioration" in genomes, etc. sice the Flood (which didn't happen, according to the evidence).
I gave evidence for my side, where's yours? Faith writes:
But it is not scriptural in that scripture says no such thing. It may or may not be a reasonable inference but it is not scriptural.
Scripturally, after the Fall thorns and thistles came up and growing food became difficult, so much more so one would expect would there be such problems after the Flood wiped out the whole early environment. Faith writes:
No, I just have to point out that scripture doesn't say it - you're making it up.
For it to be "unscriptural" you'd have to show that scripture says the environment changed for the better. Faith writes:
It certainly is made up. That's what made up means. Unfortunately you have an unrealistically low opinion of fiction; you dismiss anything made up as bad, so you can't admit that any of your beliefs are made up. No, it's an inference based on Biblical references plus common sense. Such thinking is not "made up.""I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Is that true? When economic times get tough, the ranks of the religious increase."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Probably. So is it really true that in bad economic times people turn to gods? Sure. It's even printed on our money. In God We Trust I suspect that what we really trust is the money itself."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And I'm asking if that is true. I think in hard times some believers realize that God ain't gonna do it for them. A dose of reality often cures a bad case of fantasy. What I mean is that believers rely on their relationship with God and each other more when times are tough."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Complete would be more than just good. You are limiting your made-up god.
... if I believe that God is good and not simply complete.... Phat writes:
That's a convenient definition, isn't it? Define it specifically so that it can never be tested. Why not use an honest definition instead? Miracles by definition are unexpected. There will never be a film crew at the scene or a scientist running tests."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's contradicted by your own quote, Revelation 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." That doesn't include anything that God is not.
I prefer assigning evil to what God is not. Phat writes:
Where does this dragon fit outside of alpha and omega?
Rather than having God be "complete" as in completly responsible for every stubbed toe, aborted baby, and war or storm, we find the dragon taking the hit. Phat writes:
That's a cute play on words but does it actually mean anything?
... this Beast character was, is not, and yet is.... Phat writes:
Thanks. I will.
You can laugh at the silly absurdity of the apologists.... Phat writes:
The consequences of overpopulation, etc. have nothing to do with that utterly stupid interpretation of the Revelation. And I know critics will say that this whole interpretation is negative and silly, but I encourage skeptics to keep it in mind as our planet becomes more crowded, wars happen due to competition over diminishing resources, and global warming takes its inevitable toll."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why would we do that? Wars don't gain resources any more. We're not a bunch of feudal fiefdoms exchanging farmland any more. Wars use up resources, waste resources.
So if we get involved in wars over diminishing resources.... Phat writes:
The evidence shows that everything that has ever been done for humanity has been done by humanity.
you guys have no faith in God and lots more faith in humanity (without God) than I do. Phat writes:
Note that the "last days" that Peter spoke of have been coming for more than two thousand years. So yes, I do scoff at people who take the idea of the "last days" seriously. Peter might as well have prophesied that, "People will laugh at knock-knock jokes." Scoff much, ringo?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And as I said, that contradicts your quote. The Revelation says that God is EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING that He is not.
That's my whole point--God is *not* evil. Phat writes:
That's you diminishing God. God is not a liar. God is not deceptive. These are the traits of Satan. There is no separate Satan. Satan is an agent of God. Satan is a part of God.
Phat writes:
If that was true, it would be the Revelation contradicting itself. Your own quote says that nothing can be "not God".
... the Beast is shown to be an *is not* as in is not God. Phat writes:
Jesus Himself said who would be on the guest list - those who do things for others instead of depending on God to do it for them. If there is anything to that demented "Beast" story, the ones who "follow the Beast" are the ones who DO depend on God instead of doing it themselves.
If humans choose to behave independently of God, they will find themselves not on the guest list since by default they followed the Beast rather than God. Phat writes:
The paradigm you suggest isn't even self-consistent. Your reading of the Revelation contradicts itself and it contradicts Jesus. But if reality includes this whole paradigm you cant opt-out."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes it does. There are NO letters in the alphabet except those between Alpha and Omega. That is a very clear analogy. There is nothing before the Beginning and nothing after the End. that is a very clear analogy. I am the First and the Last does not equate to I AM Everything! What on earth do you think those analogies mean if they are not all-inclusive?
Phat writes:
It says what it says. If it means pantheism, that's your problem, not mine. That's clear pantheism and we are talking monotheism."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That might work if the author hadn't also mentioned Alpha and Omega. The complete alphabet has nothing to do with time. The context implies a more general completeness.
It means that God existed before our beginning as humans...and perhaps before time itself began to exist...which would imply before space existed as well. Phat writes:
There's no difference in the completeness.
There is a distinct difference between describing a physical universe, for example, that includes within itself everything and everyone and a Deity Who created everything and everyone. Phat writes:
The source of the voice is not in question here. The nature of the source is in question. Is it a complete God (Alpha and Omega) or a puny half-god like you portray?
The very phrase "I Am" sums up the source of the voice that John heard. Phat writes:
Alpha and Omega includes the whole alphabet. All of it.
Rev 1:18 writes:
So what on earth can you even suggest regarding all-inclusiveness? "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Phat writes:
Why not?
Panthesism would suggest that the universe itself was God... But it is not possessive of a voice. Phat writes:
That's far from clear. Something akin to magic mushrooms seems pretty likely.
John was clearly "in the spirit"...he was not hallucinating on magic mushrooms. Phat writes:
How does it "make more sense". Show us the sense.
It makes more sense to imply a Creator/creation relationship rather than a whole of whom we (and Satan) are but parts of. Phat writes:
That's only your stubborn propensity to swallow everything the apologists say without actually reading the Bible and thinking it through for yourself. That propensity weakens your qualification to declare what "makes more sense".
If you see otherwise, thats only your stubborn propensity to argue about anything and everything and is not my fault. Phat writes:
I'm not trying to prove anything (about a God who doesn't exist). I'm just pointing out what the Bible says.
At best you have proven that your thinking is all inclusive of any point not made by your opponent! Phat writes:
That's entirely possible. Do you think Jim Hawkins was a real person? Or that the story he told was true?
What do you think? That the narrative was written by someone else using john as a plot device? Phat writes:
That doesn't work if Jesus is God.
We now see that God and jesus both are described as the first and the last. We know this last verse speaks of jesus rather than God the father because.... Phat writes:
Yes and there must have been "some reason" for creating the Mormon Church, the Church of Scientology, the Raelian Church.... "Some reason" for doing it is does not mean that the thinking behind the church has any merit.
... the very fact that there were churches suggests that people were prompted to create them for some reason. Phat writes:
A story about a death, burial and resurrection would suffice. Just like a story about angels writing on golden tablets would suffice. This has been pointed out to you many times before. The story does not have to be true. A Death, Burial, and Resurrection would suffice."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I didn't say that following God is evil. I said that the way to follow God is not by bleating, "Lord! Lord!" and expecting Him to do everything for you. It's by doing unto the least of these.
There are many scriptures that suggest that following God is the way to go. Phat writes:
Of course there is. Don't be silly.
There is no such thing as doing anything yourself Phat writes:
I have to do everything for myself.
You want to do everything yourself. Phat writes:
Stop it. You're just trying to rationalize your own silly beliefs. Even if God existed you likely would close the door on Him."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024