Summations Only

Gee, I didn't mean to have that effect. I'd really rather you continue, although... There is that.--Percy

You didn't show that, and I showed that you didn't show that (to borrow a page from the Faith Guide to Debating Without Actually Saying Anything). I see you're using the Faith Dictionary of the English Language again. Oxford Dictionaries says faith is "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." If you need evidence then it isn't faith. So now it seems the truth of the Bible is "spiritually discerned" rather than demonstrated by evidence. I think you're confusing ignorance with disagreement. Muslims as prejudiced as yourself could say the same thing about Christianity. This is true of both some Christians and some Muslims. You don't have to wonder about this because Christians do have a history of slaughtering Muslims. Here's a nice passage from the Wikipedia article about the First Crusade:

quote:

---

The crusader armies initially fought the Turks at the lengthy Siege of Antioch that began in October 1097 and lasted until June 1098. Once inside the city the crusaders massacred the Muslim inhabitants and pillaged the city.
...
Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks. On 15 July 1099 the crusaders entered the city. They proceeded to massacre the remaining Jewish and Muslim civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques and the city itself.
  —Wikipedia

---

I think a rather large majority of any religion would chose life over faith.--Percy

Your claims devolve and diminish. First you say it's a "mistake" to think the Catholic church "has anything to do with Christianity," but then it's reduced to, "the majority of its doctrines and practices are clearly anything but Christian," and finally it's merely "known Catholic practices violate known Bible doctrine." These are the kinds of things that religions always say about one another. It's why churches branch off from one another to form new sects.And none of your positions of diminishing degree provides any support for your claim that the Catholic church, the largest Christian church in the world, is out of the mainstream, which is what I originally said. By definition that isn't possible. You've been casting about for some way that you're not wrong ever since.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Remove extraneous space.

It's a cookbook. --Percy

You seem to have become reduced to casting aspersions instead of making arguments.It sure would be nice if debates could be won simply by declaring one's own views sacrosanct and other's views irrelevant, but alas. You've managed to post yet another content-free message that does nothing more than declare our objections irrelevant and your own claims true. We all bow to your omniscience, Lord Faith.We understand you disapprove of Catholicism, especially many things from its long history, but it's the largest Christian church and cannot, by Webster alone, be out of the mainstream of Christianity. Your judgments of the severity of its various crimes against Christian doctrine are merely your own opinion. You seem to be under some odd misimpression that your opinions are unchallengeable, that merely stating them ends discussion, and that once stated all objections can be dismissed with a mere "I've already answered that" hand wave.--Percy

You're confusing opinions with evidence. For example, that the Catholic Church engaged in indulgences is fact, but that this combined with similar facts disqualifies Catholicism as Christianity is opinion. A minority opinion, not a mainstream one. No one is arguing that because the Bible is fiction that it isn't true that it's the foundation of Christian theology and doctrine. The argument is the exact opposite. It's because the foundation of Christianity theology and doctrine is fiction that it's not true, and so is not worth serious discussion. NoNukes seems willing to discuss it, though, if you'd just return to discussing instead of declaiming. By me? Sure. By everyone? No. There are people here wiling to discuss this with you, even if only from an academic perspective. I think if all you've got to offer is characterizations like "absurd" and "craziness" and "ridiculous" that it's pretty obvious you're out of ammo and are firing blanks.Speaking just for myself personally, before I could take Bible-based theological arguments seriously you'd have convince me that the relevant portions of the Bible have some basis in fact. That the words have provided inspiration to generations is not evidence that they're true. Words of many different holy books provide inspiration.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add missing double quote around "absurd".

I didn't comment on whether "recognizable Biblical doctrine" is opinion. I said that whether some Catholic practices disqualified it as Christianity was opinion. Your opinion that Catholicism is not Christian is an unambiguously minority opinion. This is true by definition for the very simple reason that there are more Catholics than any other Christian group in the world.Why do you insist on getting beat up on issues of simple word definitions in thread after thread? So now your opinion is God's opinion? If you're so eager to express exasperation you might do better to express it at something I actually said. I *did* call the Bible fiction - isn't that enough that you don't have to make things up?--Percy

You don't seem to know where your opinion begins and stops. It is only your opinion that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and not fiction, and it is only your opinion of what the Bible says, and it is only your opinion that these facts of Catholic history constitute disqualification as a Christian religion. No one died and made you God, Faith. No, that is incorrect. Biblical authorship is largely unknown, and it is only your opinion that it contains God's opinion. No one gave your opinion the status of holy writ, Faith, and it's time you stopped acting as if it did. You gave no indication that the final paragraph was about NoNukes. I've mentioned this problem of yours before about overuse of pronouns. Sometimes one has to read back several of your messages just to figure out what "it" refers to.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

But if it's not in the Bible then it's pretty much just you deciding what qualifies as Christian and what doesn't, not God. Which is fine as long as you understand that that's what you're doing and stop putting words in God's mouth. You don't speak for God.Of course the Bible does say many things, and you can claim it's God word describing the Christian way, but there's no evidence God wrote the Bible.--Percy

This is your religious belief, with you personally (not God) deciding what it means to correctly represent the Bible. From the outside it's just two sides arguing over an ancient book of myths and legends, each with their own distinct interpretation. There is no "TRUE" Christianity, nor any "TRUE" religion. Religion is a social and cultural construct of men that has always varied and changed across geography and eras. Do what you like. For myself, I'm still interested in the thread's topic.--Percy

I think those inspired by Zeus are at least as inerrant as those inspired by God.--Percy

This is fine as a statement of belief, but not as a statement of what is true. There is as little evidence for what you believe as there is for what anyone else believes. I agree with those characterizing Faith's religious beliefs as disagreeable (to put it as mildly as I can), but that's neither evidence for or against them, and the same is true of religious beliefs that strike people as inspiring and exalting.Concerning the topic, there seems widespread agreement (and good evidence) that the Bible was written by men, and also widespread agreement (but no evidence) that these writers of the Bible were inspired by God, but no agreement that "inspired" means that what they wrote was the literally inerrant Word of God.--PercyPS - Got a spelling error when I tried to use the word "exaltant" and learned that "exalt" and "exult" are two different words. Who knew!

You believe there's a one, right and true Christianity and that your brand of Christianity is that Christianity. Using the term "orthodox" isn't going to cause people to forget this. Worse, "orthodox" has a number of meanings, and since the particular definition of orthodox you intend isn't clear from context you're just being confusing. Why not use terminology that doesn't force you to keep explaining what you really mean?--Percy

Okay so far. And how do we know he did?--Percy

I'm perfectly fine with what people say they feel and believe, but Faith says she knows, so I asked her how she knows. If her answer is that what she meant in that context is that it's what she feels then I'm fine with that.But if she really does think she knows, then I want to know how she knows. The question is rhetorical, of course, because it is obvious to everyone that she couldn't possibly know, but I have a feeling Faith will tell us that she does know.--Percy