Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gemma Therese · 01-19-2003, 05:12 AM

Schu,

The argument for free will does work. God does exist outside of time -- to Him, there is no distinction between the past, present, and future. He is in eternity, a moment that is always happening.

Obviously, your conditioning to "linear time" has hindered your ability to grasp the concept of "eternity."

And by the by, person A says Padre Pio was a jerk, person B says Padre Pio was a saint. Regardless of whether you believe A or B, you need faith.

Gemma Therese

rdalin · 01-19-2003, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
Not more entertaining but just the fact that when we exptrapolate our science from omniscience we also provide God with the omniscience for the next generation. You can explain this with Plato's theory of recollection.

It is not really my idea but since it appears to be universal and since a form of wake is universal the obvious conclusion would be that a wake has this in mind-- which is especially true if a wake ends when the corpse begins to emit foul odor. Not my idea, no, but just my observation.

You have a incredible talent for writing completely grammatical sentence which don't mean anything at all. Please explain what 'when we extrapolate our science from omniscience' actually means.

01-19-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdalin
You have a incredible talent for writing completely grammatical sentence which don't mean anything at all. Please explain what 'when we extrapolate our science from omniscience' actually means.

Science is the art of discovery in which the idea is always inspired and therefore extrapolated. Sure, we have scienitfic repetition but that is no longer science and soon gets boring. To keep human life exciting, we want new things and these new things are extrapolations from omniscience. I actually hold that we are omniscient in our own mind from where we draw and further the ideas to keep life exciting.

While we keep life exciting we add insight to our soul which is perceived by the eye of our soul and that is how we add to the pool of luminous (insight) from where the next generation will draw its worth of science. Very simple.

Radorth · 01-19-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

after 30 minutes of talking about body parts falling off i doubt anyone had much of an appetitie.

Good point.

Rad

Radorth · 01-19-2003, 01:14 PM

So glad I'm not Catholic even though my errors are so "grievous." I don't have to explain how how the cross created 4000 pounds of relics, how Mary's mom came to be called sinless after 800 years, why glossalia wasn't blessed by a Pope until the 80's, etc etc.

I have my hands full defending the New Testament and its problems.

Rad

01-19-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
So glad I'm not Catholic even though my errors are so "grievous." I don't have to explain how how the cross created 4000 pounds of relics, how Mary's mom came to be called sinless after 800 years, why glossalia wasn't blessed by a Pope until the 80's, etc etc.

Rad

But have you notived that Catholics have no trouble defending their faith? The Immaculate Conception is a simple truth and the least of their concern.

Glossolalia is the least of the gifts and the first to become the enemy of salvation. This does not mean that it is wrong, or from the devil, but simply means that it too can become a devil (if Peter can be satan glossolalia can be satan twice).

schu · 01-19-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese
Schu,

The argument for free will does work. God does exist outside of time -- to Him, there is no distinction between the past, present, and future. He is in eternity, a moment that is always happening.

Obviously, your conditioning to "linear time" has hindered your ability to grasp the concept of "eternity."

And by the by, person A says Padre Pio was a jerk, person B says Padre Pio was a saint. Regardless of whether you believe A or B, you need faith.

Gemma Therese

You have already demonstrate that you don't know what time is, now you imply here that you know what eternity is. I think you know nothing about theses things and are just making assertions to cover your ignorance.

And by the by, person A says Padre Pio was a jerk, person B says Padre Pio was a saint. Regardless of whether you believe A or B, you need faith.

So? Some people make commonplace claims about this jerk that are duplicated by lots of other people. There are plenty of jerks in the world. Others make the claim that he is a saint and has demonstrated supernatural powers. Which one would a reasonable person believe?

You're missing faith. Without it, nothing I can say will convince you of anything.

What the hell does that mean, "You're missing faith"? If faith is as MT described it I don't need any of that. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." In my view what you call faith is to abdicate your reason. Why would anyone want to do that? You say in one breath that I have to have faith to believe person A. Then you say I am missing faith. What you really mean is that I haven't accepted the unreasonable assertions you have been making. Why should any reasonable person do that? Obviously people claim to believe the unreasonable, the unbelievable for a reason. Obviously you have been conditioned to accept as true things you know can't be true.

All of your pretense is to cover the fact that you are only claiming to know the unknowable. You pretend to know things that you can't know. That is the fraud that is religion. That is why religion is a perversion of integrity.

Gemma Therese · 01-19-2003, 05:54 PM

I have come to a conclusion about things through prayer, study, thought, and observation. I think you're missing the prayer part.

Gemma Therese

Jekyll · 01-19-2003, 06:13 PM

To respond to the original question -

Freak of nature or no, doesn't incorruptability go against Christian principle? Since when is the emphasis on the body itself? I thought the emphasis was on the soul, the inner self, the being of the person. Is this wrong? Am I thinking of Buddhism here? Why would preservation be important? Because at the resurrection only those preserved will be walking around intact, while the rest of us are dragging our shuffling rotting zombie-like corpses towards the pearly gates, or because those left to be sanctified must remain intact because God wasn't considerate enough to lift them through the clouds amidst trumpets?

Besides, it is indeed true that many of the "incorruptables" show signs of mummification. Or, they're fakes (Med. ages was great for that). Or, their state of preservation is... well... rather nasty and questionable. Or, they're freaks of nature. Who knew? All hail the mammoth. You know, they did dig one up and eat it in the 20s - it helped to promote the sale of frozen peas. Everyone thought it was delicious.

Sabine Grant · 01-19-2003, 06:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jekyll
[B]To respond to the original question -

Freak of nature or no, doesn't incorruptability go against Christian principle? Since when is the emphasis on the body itself? I thought the emphasis was on the soul, the inner self, the being of the person. Is this wrong? Am I thinking of Buddhism here? Why would preservation be important? Because at the resurrection only those preserved will be walking around intact, while the rest of us are dragging our shuffling rotting zombie-like corpses towards the pearly gates, or because those left to be sanctified must remain intact because God wasn't considerate enough to lift them through the clouds amidst trumpets?

Hi jekyll : I raised the similar point earlier to Gemma regarding the insignificance of the body compared to the soul. I have yet to recieve an explanation as to why the preservation of the body is so important in her view as proof that God would manifest Himself thru the " miracle" of preserved bodies of some " saints".

As you describe the rapture, it is only fair to recognize that few catholics believe in the rapture. Amos has argued in several threads that catholics are not christians and I recall that Gemma implied in a reply she gave me in another thread that catholics and christians are not the same.

Maybe are we dealing with a doctrine which can defy christian principles because at least two participants separate themselves from what you or I understand to be a christian principle.

So maybe what I asked and what you support now is chinese to Gemma........

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-19-2003, 05:12 AM	#71
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	Schu, The argument for free will does work. God does exist outside of time -- to Him, there is no distinction between the past, present, and future. He is in eternity, a moment that is always happening. Obviously, your conditioning to "linear time" has hindered your ability to grasp the concept of "eternity." And by the by, person A says Padre Pio was a jerk, person B says Padre Pio was a saint. Regardless of whether you believe A or B, you need faith. Gemma Therese

01-19-2003, 01:14 PM	#75
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	So glad I'm not Catholic even though my errors are so "grievous." I don't have to explain how how the cross created 4000 pounds of relics, how Mary's mom came to be called sinless after 800 years, why glossalia wasn't blessed by a Pope until the 80's, etc etc. I have my hands full defending the New Testament and its problems. Rad

01-19-2003, 05:54 PM	#78
Gemma Therese Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: new york Posts: 608	I have come to a conclusion about things through prayer, study, thought, and observation. I think you're missing the prayer part. Gemma Therese

01-19-2003, 06:13 PM	#79
Jekyll Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: WI, USA Posts: 20	To respond to the original question - Freak of nature or no, doesn't incorruptability go against Christian principle? Since when is the emphasis on the body itself? I thought the emphasis was on the soul, the inner self, the being of the person. Is this wrong? Am I thinking of Buddhism here? Why would preservation be important? Because at the resurrection only those preserved will be walking around intact, while the rest of us are dragging our shuffling rotting zombie-like corpses towards the pearly gates, or because those left to be sanctified must remain intact because God wasn't considerate enough to lift them through the clouds amidst trumpets? Besides, it is indeed true that many of the "incorruptables" show signs of mummification. Or, they're fakes (Med. ages was great for that). Or, their state of preservation is... well... rather nasty and questionable. Or, they're freaks of nature. Who knew? All hail the mammoth. You know, they did dig one up and eat it in the 20s - it helped to promote the sale of frozen peas. Everyone thought it was delicious.

01-19-2003, 06:24 PM	#80
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jekyll [B]To respond to the original question - Freak of nature or no, doesn't incorruptability go against Christian principle? Since when is the emphasis on the body itself? I thought the emphasis was on the soul, the inner self, the being of the person. Is this wrong? Am I thinking of Buddhism here? Why would preservation be important? Because at the resurrection only those preserved will be walking around intact, while the rest of us are dragging our shuffling rotting zombie-like corpses towards the pearly gates, or because those left to be sanctified must remain intact because God wasn't considerate enough to lift them through the clouds amidst trumpets? Hi jekyll : I raised the similar point earlier to Gemma regarding the insignificance of the body compared to the soul. I have yet to recieve an explanation as to why the preservation of the body is so important in her view as proof that God would manifest Himself thru the " miracle" of preserved bodies of some " saints". As you describe the rapture, it is only fair to recognize that few catholics believe in the rapture. Amos has argued in several threads that catholics are not christians and I recall that Gemma implied in a reply she gave me in another thread that catholics and christians are not the same. Maybe are we dealing with a doctrine which can defy christian principles because at least two participants separate themselves from what you or I understand to be a christian principle. So maybe what I asked and what you support now is chinese to Gemma........

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.