We Have A Pope!

[Lohman446]

Its hard to overcome circular arguments.

If you accept that god is omni-potent (all powerful), knows everything, and is good then evil cannot exist.

For if it does exist and he knows of it and could stop it and does it, than he is not fully good
If it does exist and he knows it, and wishes to stop it, but cannot than he is not all powerful
If it does exist and he does not know it, but could and would stop it, than he is not all knowing.

It leaves you with.. well whcih one of the three is he not.

Its a philisophical argument, I beleive in God. I beleive in a slightly modified Lutheran viewpoint of God that I am nto going to get into. Unfortunately it is a beleif on faith, and logical and philosophical arguments cannot support it.

[Jakedubbleya]

Is it an institution run by men or an institution run by the Divine? Once again the contradiction. Divinity filtered though thousands of imperfect humans somehow remains devine, while individuals within that instituion can still be "bad catholics" and fallible.

The view is that it is an institution that was divinely ESTABLISHED. Now some of that divinity flows into the roles of its proprieters, but not enough to make sure they go straight to heaven just by having that authority. They haveto take the same test everybody does. In fact to go astray with that authority is considered perhaps the greatest of sins. I think that covers most of what you posted. "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" this is the promise jesus made when he gave peter the church.

What proof do you have the doing as you are told and following with blind faith are the right answer? We'll only know if we passed the test after we've gone over to whatever is on the other side.

I was purposely staying away from answering that question, as i made clear in my last post.

I will answer it now to a small degree though. I will reiterate that it is not blind faith, as is the case with other religions. Catholicism is based on universal philosophy as well as christian theology. It does not make any logical sense, as you stated, for a religion to exist if it cant be shown to be possible or even probable. Judaism and christianity have been shown by many of the greatest thinkers of all time to be possible if not probable explanations for human existance (albert einstein?).

Proof of God to all, as i mentioned earlyer, would negate the nature of our existance and thus such an argument can not be used.

It is also from my personal and fairly educated experience that says catholicism cannot be logically dis-proved (you have no idea how many times ive debated this). Thus it is a possibility. That possibility is turns into a probability if you accept that there is a God. Merely from the nature of a supposed/projected God, and the fact that there are no other religions on earth that come close to the combined historical backround, influence and infalled theological nature, or the understanding of the projected nature of God that the catholic church poseses.

It comes down to, eventually, was Jesus Christ indeed the son of God (it can be inferred merely from the fact that true judaism no longer exists on the planet in its original formt that yes, he was).

And did creation stem from God (does god even exist?)? I cant answer that one.

See but now what ive started is a war from the non catholics which is why i ignored your question previously.

[Jakedubbleya]

Its hard to overcome circular arguments.

If you accept that god is omni-potent (all powerful), knows everything, and is good then evil cannot exist.

For if it does exist and he knows of it and could stop it and does it, than he is not fully good
If it does exist and he knows it, and wishes to stop it, but cannot than he is not all powerful
If it does exist and he does not know it, but could and would stop it, than he is not all knowing.

It leaves you with.. well whcih one of the three is he not.

Its a philisophical argument, I beleive in God. I beleive in a slightly modified Lutheran viewpoint of God that I am nto going to get into. Unfortunately it is a beleif on faith, and logical and philosophical arguments cannot support it.

unless you accept that conquering evil results in greater good (why it is love that god put us here, out of hope that we would overcome the evil and attain greater glory with him.) And while this does not aplly to the linearly infinite and perfect God, it does apply to the limited human.

let that one brew for a bit

edit: oh, and the catholic church doesnt claim god is ALL powerfull, he is powerfull inside his own infiniteness(???), think of god as having three infinite lines or planes that extend for eternity but only in that direction. He isnt infinite in every respect for obvious reasons. His infiniteness was hinted to be things like love, truth, etc etc. Thus the reason for purgatory etc etc, we cannot become on ewith an infinitely perfect being unless we to are at least perfect etc etc.(i think you understand this part tho lohman)

so yes, logical and philisophical arguments can support it, just try harder

[SlartyBartFast]

It comes down to, eventually, was Jesus Christ indeed the son of God (it can be inferred merely from the fact that true judaism no longer exists on the planet in its original formt that yes, he was).

I would LOVE to see you locked in a room with a orthadox Jew after saying that.

Typical conservative Catholic viewpoint. Sell yourself as loving and respectful, then go say something derogatory with a great big smile.

If Belief is NOT fact. Then no rational, intelligent, or logical mind can with any certainty claim one belief is better or more true than another.

So, if your faith is based on the underlieing tenet that you must have faith and beleive. And that in your mind is sufficient in your mind to explain you entire position to me. How can you with any honesty of character dismiss the same argumentation from someone else?

You let that one brew for a bit.

[SlartyBartFast]

Judaism and christianity have been shown by many of the greatest thinkers of all time to be possible if not probable explanations for human existance (albert einstein?).

So, you admit that the concept of God is improbable? Or, is this another blatant adoption of a small part of an idea out of context to support your unwaivering views?

Of course great minds would say it was POSSIBLE. Even the most feable of minds accepts you can't prove a negative.

If you have a view that can accept modern advancements and discoveries in a religious context, then great. If you're a loon that thinks the world is only 6000 some odd years old, well.....

[SlartyBartFast]

They haveto take the same test everybody does. In fact to go astray with that authority is considered perhaps the greatest of sins. I think that covers most of what you posted.

Nope. As to be expected it completely skirts the issue. Accepting what I said and asked while completely ignoring the point.

Now let's try again, if the Pope were to say that human sacrifices should occur and begins to perform them in the Sistine chapel, would you agree?

He's being tested and failing. On a path straight to hell.

But is disobeying his authority and fighting him not fighting for good? Would you not go to Heaven for fighting his sin?

Or, another perhaps more likely one: You visit the Vatican accidentally get lost from the tour group and find the Pope sodomising a young boy. He commands you not to tell.

Is there anyway you could then go to heaven?

Do you believe that you would go to Heaven by committing sins because you were commanded by authority to do them?



Don't get me started on the horrid sins commited by priests that don't fight evil and allow murderers and assorted criminals go unpunished for the sins they confess.

And if secular law isn't holy law, how else are you supposed to fight evil if not by enforcing laws both secular and holy designed to protect the innocent?

[Jakedubbleya]

So, you admit that the concept of God is improbable? Or, is this another blatant adoption of a small part of an idea out of context to support your unwaivering views?

Of course great minds would say it was POSSIBLE. Even the most feable of minds accepts you can't prove a negative.

If you have a view that can accept modern advancements and discoveries in a religious context, then great. If you're a loon that thinks the world is only 6000 some odd years old, well.....

1. I cant say its probable or improbable, and in my opinion theres not enough information for ANYBODY to say it is one or the other.

2. Othodox judaism is A JOKE in relation to biblical judaism.

3. Im still not going to divulge if im catholic or atheist.

4. The religious context is this: God is unchanging.

oh and a derogatory smiley for good measure

[Jakedubbleya]

Nope. As to be expected it completely skirts the issue. Accepting what I said and asked while completely ignoring the point.

Now let's try again, if the Pope were to say that human sacrifices should occur and begins to perform them in the Sistine chapel, would you agree?

He's being tested and failing. On a path straight to hell.

But is disobeying his authority and fighting him not fighting for good? Would you not go to Heaven for fighting his sin?

Or, another perhaps more likely one: You visit the Vatican accidentally get lost from the tour group and find the Pope sodomising a young boy. He commands you not to tell.

Is there anyway you could then go to heaven?

Do you believe that you would go to Heaven by committing sins because you were commanded by authority to do them?



Don't get me started on the horrid sins commited by priests that don't fight evil and allow murderers and assorted criminals go unpunished for the sins they confess.

And if secular law isn't holy law, how else are you supposed to fight evil if not by enforcing laws both secular and holy designed to protect the innocent?

Ive answered those questions, connect the dots buddy.

[SlartyBartFast]

3. Im still not going to divulge if im catholic or atheist.

You're kidding right? If you're not a Christian you're a troll spouting hot air out of every orifice.

Only a devout Catholic would make derogatory claims such as your own towards other religions while claiming nothing but truth for Catholicism and still think the participants in the conversation were dull minded enough to still think you might be an Atheist.

If you're an Atheist, they should ex-communicate you. (oh, wait. how would that work? )

And back to 1.

Funny how one opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book can find another opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book a "joke".

But if you live up to my stereotype of a devout religious type I can feel your smirk and condescention from here.

If you're an Atheist and a pathetic excuse for a troll, you must be having a grand old time being a hypocrit and quoting things you can't support.

[SlartyBartFast]

Ive answered those questions, connect the dots buddy.

No you haven't. Buddy.

Quoting Catholicism says Catholicism is right, does not connect the dots. It just makes a nice self-supporting exclusionary circle of Dogma.

If you have answered the above it should be simple to reiterate. Shouldn't it?

If you posses and believe in the truth, shouldn't you be capable of answering direct questions such as these without resorting to Dogma and provide personal opinion?

Shouldn't the truth be simple to state?

You see the Pope shagging a young boy (hope this doesn't earn me a ban). He orders you to keep quiet and says he acting on Gods will. What do you do? Is he still infallible? Is he going to hell? Will you go to hell for staying quiet? Will you go to hell if you disobey his authority? Is there any way you could then go to heaven?

[SpecialBlend2786]

Slarty = awesome.

[Jakedubbleya]

No you haven't. Buddy.

Quoting Catholicism says Catholicism is right, does not connect the dots. It just makes a nice self-supporting exclusionary circle of Dogma.

If you have answered the above it should be simple to reiterate. Shouldn't it?

If you posses and believe in the truth, shouldn't you be capable of answering direct questions such as these without resorting to Dogma and provide personal opinion?

Shouldn't the truth be simple to state?

You see the Pope shagging a young boy (hope this doesn't earn me a ban). He orders you to keep quiet and says he acting on Gods will. What do you do? Is he still infallible? Is he going to hell? Will you go to hell for staying quiet? Will you go to hell if you disobey his authority? Is there any way you could then go to heaven?

Literally, i answered this question, try reading instead of (your favorite word) trolling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakedubbleya
3. Im still not going to divulge if im catholic or atheist.

You're kidding right? If you're not a Christian you're a troll spouting hot air out of every orifice.

Only a devout Catholic would make derogatory claims such as your own towards other religions while claiming nothing but truth for Catholicism and still think the participants in the conversation were dull minded enough to still think you might be an Atheist.

If you're an Atheist, they should ex-communicate you. (oh, wait. how would that work? )

And back to 1.

Funny how one opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book can find another opinionated, dismissive, narrow view and interpretation of a book a "joke".

But if you live up to my stereotype of a devout religious type I can feel your smirk and condescention from here.

If you're an Atheist and a pathetic excuse for a troll, you must be having a grand old time being a hypocrit and quoting things you can't support.

And that makes me a troll how?
-
Only a devout catholic would make derogatory claims even though thats uncatholic, you sir are a genius.
-
One would first have-to be catholic, and it takes more than dis-belief to be ex-communicated.
-
If you knew anything about biblical history you too would know that yes, orthodox judaism does not abide by the same standards as biblical judaism, thsi isnt dismissive its historical and agreed upon by most scholars (including jews). I think i know which half of this conversation is opinionated dismissive and narrow minded.
-
Ive met holy men, and a smirk is something id be rather surprised to see on their faces, dont insult something you obviously know nothing about.
-
Some athiests show respect.

[tropical_fishy]

writers "inspired" to write the original passages and stories of the Bible, the interpreters who translated the ancient languages, the scribes that copied the translated texts, the patrons that edited, censored and rewrote passages to create versions of the Bible, the Pope, the Cardinals, the priests, EVERYONE in an imperfect human being.

Okay then, so let's say they all put a human bias on it. Is it not possible that they were biased against women as well? After all, God may have commanded them to write, but if the dogma is correct, then men have free will to do as they please... and perhaps at that point they "pleased" to surpress women.

Now some of that divinity flows into the roles of its proprieters, but not enough to make sure they go straight to heaven just by having that authority. They haveto take the same test everybody does. In fact to go astray with that authority is considered perhaps the greatest of sins. I think that covers most of what you posted. "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" this is the promise jesus made when he gave peter the church.

The greatest of sins? Hmmm, now I think you're making stuff up. Along with OT stuff being worthless... you know why? Because all GOOD Catholics follow the Ten Commandments. That's an OT thing, dear. And nowhere in the Ten Commandments (God's LITERAL word to the people, rather than a mish-mash of various mistranslated stories) says nothing about abusing authority.

1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

Now... where's the part about power?

Quoting Catholicism says Catholicism is right, does not connect the dots. It just makes a nice self-supporting exclusionary circle of Dogma.

Agreed.

You see the Pope shagging a young boy (hope this doesn't earn me a ban). He orders you to keep quiet and says he acting on Gods will. What do you do? Is he still infallible? Is he going to hell? Will you go to hell for staying quiet? Will you go to hell if you disobey his authority? Is there any way you could then go to heaven?

Look! He's formed the Protestant religion all by himself. Yay!

But anyway, interesting quandry. I suppose the issue would be the homosexuality rather than the incest, because that's just the way the Church works.

From my experience with Christians of all flavors, I'd say most people would say if the Pope went to confession and asked God for forgiveness (or just prayed to God for forgiveness) and was truly sorry, then God would forgive him.

Passages in Leviticus call for the public stoning of people who plant more than one crop in the same field - where clothing made of a blend of materials, and many other things. Funny when people state "Leviticus says" they just leave out the fundamental "laws" that are... umm less than acceptable in today's society.

That was my point.

[Jakedubbleya]

The greatest of sins? Hmmm, now I think you're making stuff up. Along with OT stuff being worthless... you know why? Because all GOOD Catholics follow the Ten Commandments. That's an OT thing, dear. And nowhere in the Ten Commandments (God's LITERAL word to the people, rather than a mish-mash of various mistranslated stories) says nothing about abusing authority.

Originally posted by: Jakedubbleya
2. Not all things were done away with, jesus himself stated that the ten commandments for example were in full effect. The un-christian laws and the traditions based uopn those laws are what was discarded in that respect. Much of it is also relative to the nature of God and Christ, God does not change and neither does Christ so certain things of that nature were kept, this is all through centuries of "revelation" of course, something I went into further depth with in an earlyer post.

Im your priest, i say its ok to have sex with your little brother even though I never do it myself, bu tim yoru onlyt referance and thus everybody has sex with their little brothers.

Yeah.. no sin there

priests by nature are in part responcible for the sins of their followers (and potential damnation) if they teach them incorrectly, which could be a hell of a lot of sins, thus the worst of sins (potentially).

[trevorjk]

meh the dudes like 400 and will die with in the next year anyways, so yay for a new pope!

bah religion