theophilus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
<strong>5894
&gt;Not so. In general, theists cling to their faith
&gt; so desperately (for fear of being ostracized?)
&gt; that they will teach themselves to overlook
&gt; almost any inconsistancy.
Inconsistency! Learn to spell.

Come on, really. Is that the best you can do? Attack a spelling error?</strong>

Your spelling error is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger irrationality. For instance, you make a categorical statement about theists "in general" when you can't possible know what theists "in general" do or don't do.

<strong>&gt;A lot of religious figures are very clever, by
&gt; the way, and protect themselves with a
&gt; virtually unassailable, "God works in
&gt; mysterious ways" or "This is one of the higher
&gt; mysteries of faith."
"A lot?" Name two.


Ooooh, now I'm just wriggling in the vice-like grip of your logic. Boy, I can tell when I've met my match. Whew. "Name two." I wonder why Churchill never used that one.</strong>

More of your unsupported generalizations. If "a lot" of theists say this, you shouldn't have any trouble supporting your statement. You can't because this is a manufactured claim by atheists intended to give them an appearance of intellectual superiority.

<strong>quote:

&gt;For instance, take the Holy Trinity. God is
&gt; three different beings all at once. Sheer
&gt; rubbish,
Sheer ignorance on your part.

Of course! Why didn't I realize that? All these years I've wasted, waiting for you to come along and tell me that I was simply being ignorant.</strong>

The doctrine of the Trinity does not posit God in "three different beings." It declares One God in three persons. By making this statement you are simply demonstrating your ignorance and, therefore the irrelevance of your arguments against, a fundamental Christian doctrine.

<strong>Wow. I can't tell you how relieved I am now that you've come along and set me straight.</strong>

It's a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.

bonduca

I really must comment here. Spelling errors are common among those of us with learning disabilities. I do not consider that part of a larger irrationality.

Mageth

Your spelling error is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger irrationality.

Your pedantry is only important because it is symptomatic of your larger egocentricity.

Not Prince Hamlet

Thedophile,


Ok, I'm a little new to this exciting new form of logic of yours, but here goes: shouldn't that be "can't possibly know"?

I guess you might be on to something about this whole "symptomatic of your larger irrationality" thing.

But anyway, you're assuming that when I say "theists do" that I meant all theists, and not merely, "one or more theists".

If my mother and my girlfriend both like red cars, it is a true statement to say, "Women like red cars." Whether all women like red cars is a different matter entirely. At least two women like red cars, hence the statement is a true one.

Therefore, if more than one theist has used a particular statement in conversation with me, it is a true statement to say that theists use that statement. Whether all theists do so is another matter.

Wow! I guess being a theist gives you a wonderful insight into absolute truth that we poor misguided atheists have to muddle about to try to find. It's uncanny, really, how that keen razor of a mind of yours just slit through the murky depths to reveal that yes, we atheists have made this claim simply to give us an appearance of intellectual superiority.

Fellow atheists, the game is up. We've fooled them up until now, but this one is just too quick for us.


Ah, I see. It's not three different beings, it's three copies of the same being even though one of them is corporeal and the others are not. (?)

Of course, makes perfect sense.

I must disagree here. Assuming for the sake of argument that your assertion that I am ignorant is true, it does not follow that my arguments are therefore irrelevant, since the definition of "irrelevance" is "the quality or state of being unrelated to a matter being considered" and obviously what I was saying was related to the matter being considered.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "unworthy of consideration"?


And I'll bet you've done a lot of dirty jobs in your day.

Jeff

Albert Cipriani

Dear Tercel,
Yes, Faith may be equated with trust, but it is more than that. In so far as you believe that, I believe that. But as with virtually all Protestant/Catholic disagreements, Catholics believe more than Protestants. Thus, Faith must be more than trust, it must also be confessional.

Ergo the Nicene creed: "I believe in God the Father Almighty the maker of heaven and earth and in..." said aloud at Mass. The trust, must be made manifest by confessing it publicly. Thus we Catholics conform to Christ's dictum, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32).

Where you're going wrong with 99% and myself is most recently expressed thusly:


The chasm between knowledge and belief is formed by a lack of information into which doubts flood. 99% is rightly pressing you to admit that your KNOWLEDGE of say the nose on your face is based upon you having more information about it than you have about your BELIEF in God.

No matter how much information you may have about God, I dare say you do not have as much information about Him as you do about the nose on your face. Ergo, you ought to admit that you know your nose exists, but can only believe God exists.

The fact that our theology says


is itself irrelevant to your disagreement with 99%. We cannot help but be informed by the information we have regarding God's existence. Thus, assent to that information is not possible, it's automatic. But we cannot have enough information about God's existence to know that God exists. Thus, there's nothing "mere" about assenting to the knowledge that God exists. And it's a misnomer for you to refer to "MERE assent to God's existence" as a possibility.

The correct path for you out of this nettle is for you to admit that, unlike the demons who have real knowledge of God's existence, you only have information about God's existence. Ergo, only the demons can have mere assent to God's existence, which avails them of nothing; whereas, our mere information culminating in our hard-fought assent to the knowledge that God exists avails us of His promises as it is the first step in the dance of Faith. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

Autonemesis

...Please.

(rimshot)

Autonemesis

That's it, in a nutshell. Doubt on the one side, faith on the other: Yin/Yang, Electron/Positron, Top/Bottom, each one defined as the opposite of the other, mutually exclusive yet joined at the hip. Faith is lack of doubt. Doubt is lack of faith. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. It's positively buddhist if you ask me.

GunnerJ

He's baaa-aaack.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Theo,
Now you really ought to be "embarrassed" for I can detect no difference between what I said and you now say regarding your Reformed theology.

I said:


You say,


What am I missing? Or what aren't you saying? It's axiomatic in both of our traditions that righteousness is ultimately derived from Christ's atonement. That's not the issue. The issue is through what means?

Catholics and Protestants believe the means of obtaining the righteousness ascribed to Christ’s atonement is through Faith. So far, so good. When we accept the gift of Faith, we are made righteous in God's sight.

But for Protestants, this righteous is not metaphysically real. Your means of obtaining it is through God's condescension, His holding His nose so to speak and accepting the unacceptable stench of our depravity. That's why you guys don't say you've been made righteous in the Lord, but rather, say that your righteousness has been "imputed" to you by the Lord. That's why I say it's a ruse.

But for Catholics, the means of our righteousness is metaphysically real. We become new creatures, are born again, so to speak. The transformation is as real as the transubstantiation of bread and wine at the Last Supper and every Mass since then.



Both justification and sanctification are one piece of work, like how our assimilating transformations within our mother's womb are no different than our assimilating transformations outside our mother's womb. Our metaphysical transformation at the moment of our justification is no different in nature than the consequent metaphysical transformations wrought by our sanctifying walk with Christ thereafter.

The means of our transformations are all that differs. Within our mother's womb it is her very blood that makes us whole. After we're born, it is through mother's milk that our growth continues. Likewise, the rebirth of our justification is accomplished by the blood of Christ. And our consequent sanctification is accomplished through our cooperation with the His Holy Ghost thereafter. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

critical thinking made ez

Faith is confused with Belief by many. Free will is certainly a valuable component.

Here is the modern usage of words “Faith and Believe” and their relative meaning to each other.

I studied for the test therefore, I believe I will pass.
I studied for the test; therefore, I have faith I will pass.
I didn’t study for the test, I believe I will fail.
I didn’t study for the test, I have faith I will pass. (I could make some lucky guesses and pass)
I missed the test, I believe I will fail.
I missed the test, (here is where you are incapable of having faith to pass or fail)(meaning a 0 (zero) chance of an event occuring)

Attributes of Faith
It must always be for the positive (will occur, does exist, will happen)
Can be used where even a minute chance exists that supports the assertion based on some type of evidence (real or imagined).
Can also be used where there is overwhelming evidence to support the assertion
Cannot be used when there is an understanding that there is a zero chance of occurance.