Panta Pei

Albert wrote:

“Ergo, any representation of God, from the burning bush to the word Yahweh, to the historical Jesus, to Mohammad's Allah, is subject to truth analysis. If God exists, He cannot lie by definition. But anybody, word, or bush claiming to represent God can... and all to often do.”

Hey, Albert, since you appear to be the representative of “God” here you qualify

“God” only has existed in the above listed mythical representations, we wouldn’t be having this discussion otherwise.

Honestly, Steve the mild mannered human.

GunnerJ

But wait, if B is a subset of A, and you cannot be A without being B, it kind of makes B's status as subset of A meaningless. They're really the same thing. Thus, we're back with the old Protestant game of "Who's a True Christian(TM)?" just with set theory as a new dressing.

I'm not sure if what is meant by "Is the pope Catholic..."

Perhaps I have a certain misconception here... to use your analogy, if the President could nullify any part of the Constitution at any time for any reason and instate new rules with the same stipulation there'd be no way to call him a traitor. If I'm incorrect about the Pope being analogous to this despot made president, please inform me. I was under the impression that the Pope's word is law.

OK, them, we have a problem of labels. "Current form" was meant to denote what passes for Catholocism, what is called the Church. If the real Church is somehting different, and has always been the same... Let me rephrase my question.

If what is called "Catholocism" now is not real Catholocism, then would it not be accurate to say that Trad. Cath. is really not "Catholocism" by name, but a separate religion? I don't think I've adequetly explained what I mean, but that's the best I can do at this time in the evening.

Hey just wait around a few years, maybe the good old days of Inquisitions, Crusades, witch hunts, and missionary conquest will return.

Koyaanisqatsi

I tell you what, Albert, the minute you actually post something that isn't rhetorical is the minute we'll have a mutually respectful deconstruction.

I guarantee it and will concede the second you demonstrate I veer from it.

sandlewood

There are those who engage in a discussion through a lengthy thread, and by the end of the thread are unable to support their initial assertions. But then, a few days later they are found to be positing the same assertions elsewhere. When I see this, I usually put such a person on my "don't bother to debate" list.

I kind of left <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000017" target="_blank">this thread</a> go about communication with God, happy to let lurkers make their own conclusions. But now you mention a personal communication with God, so I again replied there. I just don't under stand the nature of this communication you are referring to, whether he communicates with us or whether he doesn't. Not sure what you mean by this. What's the difference? Isn't the Christian conception of Heaven a place where you get what you want? Or is it a place where you get what's good for you, whether you want it or not? Will I be force-fed broccoli because it's nutritious, or will everything nutritious taste like Oreo cookies and not cause me to get fat? What I was trying to find out, and couldn't, was who brings down the pope if he is not doing his job correctly? Are there any in the church who check the pope, and have the authority to indict him? Or is it just up to all the people to decide for themselves not to follow him. If so, where did they get the idea that they were a better interpreter of the Catholic morality than the pope? Ok, so this is another way of saying that All Catholics are Christians. (But it's not necessary that All Christians are Catholics.) Well if All Catholics are Christians, then Catholics are a subset of Christians, not vice versa. (Assuming we are talking about proper subsets) So I don't think this is what you meant to say.


P.S. Oh, and please don't tell me you are advocating that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument. It is so misunderstood and will make you look bad like Bob Enyart.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

emotional

</strong>

"Cannot"? Not omnipotent anymore? "If God is God he isn't good, if God is good he isn't God...".

</strong>

Jesus contradicts Yahweh. Despite the disclaimer of "coming not to destroy, but to fulfill", Christianity and Catholicism are shorn of most of Yahweh's commands. But heck, even in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) Yahweh contradicts himself: sins visited upon future generations in the Decalogue, says he, and then, in Ezekiel, sons will not bear the sins of their fathers, but each man will be put to death for his own sin. God can't make up his mind even in a single book!

</strong>

The official Orthodox Jewish stance on Christianity, Catholicism and Islam is that they are all cancerous outgrowth on the butt of Judaism. The One True Religion for you is a whoreson's (Jesus) satanic innovation for Orthodox Jews. To quote Thomas Paine: I for my part disbelieve them all. But what I wonder is why you believe in Catholicism and not another thing. All religions claim to have some uniqueness that makes them pass the test of truth.

</strong>

Albert: show me how your claims have anything to do with the real world. I know fire causes burns, germs cause disease, sex causes offspring and other such materialistic direct cause-effect relations. I do not know, however, how the kissing of the Invisible Single Idol's derriere brings more welfare and peace and harmony to the world.

</strong>

Ad Hominem, Petitio Principii... great going, but I didn't make any of those fallacies in my argument. You're just evading the main issue: real-world claims. You haven't shown me how your beliefs are more relevant to the world than Harry Potter. That's the issue.

ecco

All Quotes from Albert the Traditional Catholic

Looks to me like his Hell is better than your Heaven.

Albert, you have carefully chosen to ignore the gist of my post. It was not that I would be fulfilled if I won the lottery. I was stating that I have a better chance of winning the lottery since it is real, exists and pays off than you have of going to heaven, which does not exist except in the minds of theists. One chance in 100 million is better than one chance in 0.

Theists often like to use terms like “a hole” and “unfulfilled” why trying to preach to unbelievers: “Without god, you cannot be fulfilled, there will always be an emptiness inside you”. Nonsense. Fulfillment, comes from what one does in one’s life: how one relates to his/her spouse; how one raises one’s children; how ethically one conducts one’s affairs; etc. It does not come from “finding jesus” or getting confirmed or praying to Allah seven times a day.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Rimstalker,
You argue:


Your #2 inference is an equivocation. You have equivocated the meaning of Christianity with Christians and Catholicism with Catholics. What's true about your first premise, therefore, does not apply to your #2 inference.

To spell it out: you've changed the subject! You've gone from Christianity being a subset of Catholicism (which is true) to a Catholic being a Christian (which is false). I'll make it even simpler for you:

1) Catholicism consists of 100 dogmatic definitions.
2) Christianity consists of 99 or less of these dogmatic definitions.
3) Ergo, Christianity is a subset of Catholicism.

It's that simple. To correctly apply this syllogism to people, you could say that Christians are partial Catholics, or apostate Catholics are Christians. But you could not say, as you did say, that "you cannot be A (Catholic) without being B (Christian)." Like I said earlier, that's a non sequitur. Christianity is not the birth canal to Catholicism. Rather, Christianity is the aborted and deformed fetus of Catholicism.

You say,


If that were true, why would we bother with the Bible and the 10 commandments or even God Himself? We'd have our god on earth. The Pope's word would be the final word on all matters. But it is not.

According to research done by the Church in preparation for the First Vatican Council (which presented the Pope's infallibility as a de fide Catholic belief), some 40 Popes held heretical positions. How do we know this? By their word, of course. Ergo, if their word was law, then the law of the Church contradicted itself 40 times over and proved 40 times over just how fallible she was. Only the word of the Pope spoken ex cathedra is the infallible law of the Church.– Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

wyzaard

A:
For I mean by this poem to advance an aesthetic, not a rational, argument.

Wyz:
Then, why do you say...

A:
I think, a valid way of feeling about it.

Wyz:
Ummm... no; validity lies in the realm of rationality. Aesthetics are subjective, and thus do not follow any objective or absolute framework. For me, a naturalistic universe is MORE beautiful than one with a whining whelp of a god. Unless you wish to postulate a non-christian god of better flavor...

A:
Wishful thinking is not grounds for believing in God, but believing in God satisfies our wishful thinking. And what is wrong with that?

Wyz:
Because wishful thinking can becaome BAD actions.

A:
Can you guys at least admit that Hope in God's existence is preferable to no hope in His existence?

Wyz:
Which one? I REALLY hate yours, so can I choose another one?

A:
I liken our worldly condition to that of prisoners chained together. One by one we are released and escorted through the soundproof prison doors. Those who remain in our chains can either assume that our comrades are being shot or being set free. The choice is ours. In fact, the choices we make are all that we are.

Wyz:
I'd rather have integrity, and admit multiple possibilities in this case, unless I have good reason not to. Why LIE to yourself?

A:
I'd rather choose hope than assume the worse.

Wyz:
Why choose either, unless you have reason to?

A:
What is wrong with that? It's not even illogical.

Wyz:
Of course it it; you are thniking and acting on information that you do not have. This is idiotic.

A:
And such a choice helps my wrists and ankles not chaff so much against this chain of being.

Wyz:
No, your wrists are still chafing; you are simply denying that they are.

This is what we call pathetic.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sandlewood,
The difference between hopes and desires is the difference between goals and deadlines. You see, the word "dead" in deadlines underscores a dark reality: if you don't get your desires met within a certain period of time, you yourself will meet an unpleasent end. All our desires are like that.

We desire air, food, drink, shelter, clothing. Attaining these desires gives us pleasure. Not attaining them by a certain deadline results in physical death.

Goals we hope for, on the other hand, tho they too may give us pleasure, are not absolutely necessary from our physical survival. Hence I hope to get lucky (sex) , find meaning, make a lot of money, and get to heaven.

As the attainment of our desires within certain deadlines result in our physical survival, the attainment of the goals we hope for result in our personal survival. Thus, people tend to go insane or commit suicide as a result of hopelessness, not as a result of unmet desires.

You ask,


God.

If the Pope were to intend to declare infallibly a doctrine that contradicted prior Church doctrine, God would kill him. That is the only method in place for maintaining the Church's indefectibility. No Church procedure is in place for countermanding the Pope's dictates or removing him from office. Only the hand of God. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

sidewinder

Albert: I think it is perfectly fine to have hope and faith that a God exists. I think what this hope and faith really boils down to is hope and faith that death isn't the end of the line. I think people have this hope and faith because if they didn't have it then life wouldn't be worth much.

Having said this, I think this hope and faith should be private among all human beings. It should never be imposed on anyone in any manner. People should be free to hold their own beliefs, no matter how irrational. Religions can conduct their business as they wish and people can be free to join these religions. The only line that must always be kept is the separation between church and state. Religion should be like one of the many other community service type groups you can join.

You seem to have the black and white viewpoint that if your god doesn't exist then life is not worth living. It's a pretty bleak view and I hope for your sake that you never again become an atheist because you mentioned suicide as an option. I ask you to consider that many do not believe that a god exists and yet see life as worth living. I take life as IT IS in the here and now, and I make the best of it.

I would have no problem being a member of your religion (or any of the other ones) if anyone could produce one shred of tangible evidence that their version of God exists. I have read many of your posts and it's obvious you have this large convoluted system of religious belief all worked out in your head so that you can believe. Yet, it's just your version, and the guy kneeling next to you at Mass probably has a very different convoluted system all worked out so that he or she can believe. You have indicated that you think Protestantism is wrong along with the religion of Islam. Yet, just as fervently as you think they are wrong, they think you are wrong. Who's right? The Bible is full of errors and contradictions and you expect me to believe it is the revelation of a perfect god? The Jewish and Islamic God is essentially the Biblical God, the one who supposedly inspired a book full of errors and contradictions. You expect me to believe any of this nonsense?

Life is much less complicated when you deal with the facts in front of your eyes ("just the facts, ma'am.) I feel no need to build some convoluted, largely irrational system of belief just to essentially provide an emotional crutch. I think reality can be pretty hard to face at times and we all have defense mechanisms against this harsh reality. Yes, reality is a hard pill to swallow. But it's all we have and the ideal thing to do is to make the best of it.