Does the Pope know what he's talking about?
-
He's not sad, he's plain pathetic. And probably delusional. I bet he thinks that he's devastated us with the logic of the case he put forward.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Genuine religion rejects ... and battles ... unjust violence.
Looking at history one quickly comes to the conclusion that genuine religion kills over the most minor points of theology, and/or who gets to count the cash after the collection.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
genuine religion kills over the most minor points of theology
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it. Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence). That does not mean millions of people have not killed millions of others over stupid things in His name. But that makes THEM f'd up, not the religion they do not correctly follow. Getting back to the OPs question, having been brought up Catholic, I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible, in this case he is correct. But we are fallen people in a fallen world and screw it up constantly.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
Wow! I did not know that! :omg: So how much underestimating is going on? Got any citations to back up both of those claims?
If you were willing to think for a moment or two, you'd understand that it's true. But you're not, so you won't -- you're not interested in "any citations to back up both of those claims" and we both know this.
Fine, maybe he is not interested. But there are other people reading your comments. You should provide sources, that way everyone other than Oakman has a chance of seeing if you are presenting useful information.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
genuine religion kills over the most minor points of theology
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it. Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence). That does not mean millions of people have not killed millions of others over stupid things in His name. But that makes THEM f'd up, not the religion they do not correctly follow. Getting back to the OPs question, having been brought up Catholic, I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible, in this case he is correct. But we are fallen people in a fallen world and screw it up constantly.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it.
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV. Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us. It is created by, administered by, and explained by fallible humans who can offer no independent proof that their pipeline to God is any more direct than anyone else's. Religious faith, it seems, boils down to believing in them, not God.
RichardM1 wrote:
Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence).
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing. There also seems to be some semantic confusion between the act of veneration and the object of veneration. A belief in God can exist quite apart from the acceptance of any form of organized religion. Saying that religion may indeed kill over the most minor points of theology, and/or who gets to count the cash after the collection, does not necessarily give any indication of whether the speaker believes in God or not.
RichardM1 wrote:
I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible
Actually I agree with George Bernard Shaw who pointed out that the claim of a Pope to be infallible in a very small area of human thought, after considering the subject at some length is really far less offensive than most of the claims made by men who assure the general populace that they are an absolute expert in something or everything. Implicit in the Pope's claim is the admission that in most cases, he is just as fallible as anyone else. A humbleness I wouldn't mind seeing many politicans - or Ilion - emulate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I thought you could figure out the difference between the product and the people who misuse it.
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV. Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us. It is created by, administered by, and explained by fallible humans who can offer no independent proof that their pipeline to God is any more direct than anyone else's. Religious faith, it seems, boils down to believing in them, not God.
RichardM1 wrote:
Contextually, Christ (true religion) rejects unjust violence (But not all violence).
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing. There also seems to be some semantic confusion between the act of veneration and the object of veneration. A belief in God can exist quite apart from the acceptance of any form of organized religion. Saying that religion may indeed kill over the most minor points of theology, and/or who gets to count the cash after the collection, does not necessarily give any indication of whether the speaker believes in God or not.
RichardM1 wrote:
I can categorically say that while being Pope does not make you infallible
Actually I agree with George Bernard Shaw who pointed out that the claim of a Pope to be infallible in a very small area of human thought, after considering the subject at some length is really far less offensive than most of the claims made by men who assure the general populace that they are an absolute expert in something or everything. Implicit in the Pope's claim is the admission that in most cases, he is just as fallible as anyone else. A humbleness I wouldn't mind seeing many politicans - or Ilion - emulate.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV.
Admittedly bad choice of words on my part, but again, I would trust you to look past that to the real argument. By sidestepping it, you are looking like Troy.
Oakman wrote:
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Oakman wrote:
, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing.
It is simple - there is one available source of information on Christ, and you either have to treat it as authoritative, or believe in Christ only because - what? Where does information on Him come from? It's like saying you believe in Quantum Mechanics, but than saying that you don't believe in uncertainty, and not accepting the experimental evidence shows it. The Bible IS the experimental data available on Christ. If you come up with some other source, feel free to share it. Oh wait, that would be religion. So yes, single source. According to it, Christ whipped people. Used violence. On those who did not show respect for the Lord, and the Temple as the Lord's house, as opposed to those who were oppressing/subjugating others.
Oakman wrote:
Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us.
Yes, yes, the whole religion vs faith argument. Yes. religion sucks, since it is people imposing their ideas on others, and it is unfortunate that the word used by the Pope was not 'belief'. But like I said about the Pope. Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible. In the BSG thread, you said Rob Graham wrote: there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that phrase. Not even Starbuck is interesting any more. (end qoute) It looks like you believe there is good and evil (either that, or you like where BSG has gone :) ). Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is absolute truth?
-
Oakman wrote:
The last time I looked, God ( by most definitions) is not considered a product by anyone who believes he/she/it exists. Indeed, the way I learned it, people are the product, and God is the producer. YMMV.
Admittedly bad choice of words on my part, but again, I would trust you to look past that to the real argument. By sidestepping it, you are looking like Troy.
Oakman wrote:
Presumably this is a way of your saying that one or more branches of Christianity has the (best||only) pipeline
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Oakman wrote:
, and that said branch has assured you that God likes some killing but not all killing.
It is simple - there is one available source of information on Christ, and you either have to treat it as authoritative, or believe in Christ only because - what? Where does information on Him come from? It's like saying you believe in Quantum Mechanics, but than saying that you don't believe in uncertainty, and not accepting the experimental evidence shows it. The Bible IS the experimental data available on Christ. If you come up with some other source, feel free to share it. Oh wait, that would be religion. So yes, single source. According to it, Christ whipped people. Used violence. On those who did not show respect for the Lord, and the Temple as the Lord's house, as opposed to those who were oppressing/subjugating others.
Oakman wrote:
Religion on the other hand, is the product of men who say they are divinely inspired to explain what God expects of us.
Yes, yes, the whole religion vs faith argument. Yes. religion sucks, since it is people imposing their ideas on others, and it is unfortunate that the word used by the Pope was not 'belief'. But like I said about the Pope. Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible. In the BSG thread, you said Rob Graham wrote: there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that phrase. Not even Starbuck is interesting any more. (end qoute) It looks like you believe there is good and evil (either that, or you like where BSG has gone :) ). Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is absolute truth?
RichardM1 wrote:
you are looking like Troy.
Don't be silly. I have hair on my balls.
RichardM1 wrote:
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Actually I read something quite different into what he said - it appeared to me that his thesis was that "true" religions were peace-loving - including Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Muslims.
RichardM1 wrote:
So yes, single source
Actually there are (a few) historical records of more or less verified writings. More importantly, we need to remember that a large portion of the New Testament was written years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, mostly by men who were pretending they were someone else with a better claim to knowing what they were talking about. And which books would be considered canonical was the result of a very political process about three hundred years later. While we are at it, we might also consider that "the Bible" is the translation of a translation of a translation - unless you, of course, are one of the folks who has read the earliest copies written in Aramaic and Greek. I know enough to know that the Hebrews inhabiting Judea a couple of millenia ago did not talk like Elizabethans, but not enough to comment on the accuracy of any particular passage. Though I have had fun debating the meaning of some of them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible
Only when he specifically states that he is speaking ex cathedra
RichardM1 wrote:
whole religion vs faith argument
I guess I am not familiar with that one, at least not by that name.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think there is absolute truth?
If there is, I don't imagine I am equipped to know it. Nor, as near as I can tell, is anyone else.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
RichardM1 wrote:
you are looking like Troy.
Don't be silly. I have hair on my balls.
RichardM1 wrote:
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Actually I read something quite different into what he said - it appeared to me that his thesis was that "true" religions were peace-loving - including Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Muslims.
RichardM1 wrote:
So yes, single source
Actually there are (a few) historical records of more or less verified writings. More importantly, we need to remember that a large portion of the New Testament was written years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, mostly by men who were pretending they were someone else with a better claim to knowing what they were talking about. And which books would be considered canonical was the result of a very political process about three hundred years later. While we are at it, we might also consider that "the Bible" is the translation of a translation of a translation - unless you, of course, are one of the folks who has read the earliest copies written in Aramaic and Greek. I know enough to know that the Hebrews inhabiting Judea a couple of millenia ago did not talk like Elizabethans, but not enough to comment on the accuracy of any particular passage. Though I have had fun debating the meaning of some of them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible
Only when he specifically states that he is speaking ex cathedra
RichardM1 wrote:
whole religion vs faith argument
I guess I am not familiar with that one, at least not by that name.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think there is absolute truth?
If there is, I don't imagine I am equipped to know it. Nor, as near as I can tell, is anyone else.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Don't be silly. I have hair on my balls.
I will take your word on both sides of that statement.
Oakman wrote:
his thesis was that "true" religions were peace-loving - including Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Muslims
I took it from a catholic viewpoint. Only one way to salvation. Only one true religion.
Oakman wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: whole religion vs faith argument I guess I am not familiar with that one, at least not by that name.
Faith is the belief in a deity, an internal thing that may have external manifestations. Religion is a set of things you have to do, an algorithm that only requires action, drawn up by people, often as the result of a professed faith. In the worst case, religion is what everyone complains about - the requirement to profess a doctrine and conduct a set of rites or face the consequences now rather than in the after life. In the Christian spectrum, it goes from "salvation by grace alone through faith alone" Evangelical Protestant (various) "I got baptized and went to Communion, so I'll got to heaven" Catholic, some others "Everyone gets to heaven" Universalism "If I don't follow everything exactly right, I'm going to hell" Evangelical Protestant (various) "Do what I tell you or you are going to hell and soon" Most of them at one point, few now (cont)
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
you are looking like Troy.
Don't be silly. I have hair on my balls.
RichardM1 wrote:
How can you read the word "true religion" and not think that is what the Pope meant?
Actually I read something quite different into what he said - it appeared to me that his thesis was that "true" religions were peace-loving - including Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Muslims.
RichardM1 wrote:
So yes, single source
Actually there are (a few) historical records of more or less verified writings. More importantly, we need to remember that a large portion of the New Testament was written years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, mostly by men who were pretending they were someone else with a better claim to knowing what they were talking about. And which books would be considered canonical was the result of a very political process about three hundred years later. While we are at it, we might also consider that "the Bible" is the translation of a translation of a translation - unless you, of course, are one of the folks who has read the earliest copies written in Aramaic and Greek. I know enough to know that the Hebrews inhabiting Judea a couple of millenia ago did not talk like Elizabethans, but not enough to comment on the accuracy of any particular passage. Though I have had fun debating the meaning of some of them.
RichardM1 wrote:
Unfortunately, this is the area he in which he is supposed to be infallible
Only when he specifically states that he is speaking ex cathedra
RichardM1 wrote:
whole religion vs faith argument
I guess I am not familiar with that one, at least not by that name.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you think there is absolute truth?
If there is, I don't imagine I am equipped to know it. Nor, as near as I can tell, is anyone else.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
we need to remember that a large portion of the New Testament was written years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, mostly by men who were pretending they were someone else with a better claim to knowing what they were talking about.
I've heard people say that, but not seen documentation. Mark is a good example - it is traditionally attributed to 'Mark', and people say it wasn't, therefore the Bible is flawed. The attribution is not in the document itself. Mathew probably related what Peter told him. There are a couple of letters that people say the same kind of thing about, but it comes down to dueling PhD theses.
Oakman wrote:
we might also consider that "the Bible" is the translation of a translation of a translation - unless you, of course, are one of the folks who has read the earliest
Guilty. I have Hebrew for the OT, and Greek for the NT. I don't know the languages, but I have translation tools. I use them when there is conflict in the translations, or if it is a particular sticking point. I can not learn the languages in the ancient forms or colloquialisms, but I can at least see if there are inconsistencies. I don't have a particle accelerator, but sometimes I experiment with billiard balls :) (I have proved the uncertainty principle - the location or momentum of the que, I can have one, but not the other, sometimes I have neither.) I know people who KNOW the KJ (as originally dictated by God translated) is what God meant, and that everything before or since has been the work of the Devil.
Oakman wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: Do you think there is absolute truth? If there is, I don't imagine I am equipped to know it. Nor, as near as I can tell, is anyone else.
(scratching head) IIRC, you seem to believe in QM, experimental evidence and all. I believe that is a description of an absolute truth in our universe. Not the final detailed description, but a piece along the way. I agree we can't comprehend the totality of truth, all at once, but I believe we can understand parts, like QM and GR, and I believe that is also the case at the moral level.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
Don't be silly. I have hair on my balls.
I will take your word on both sides of that statement.
Oakman wrote:
his thesis was that "true" religions were peace-loving - including Episcopalians, Buddhists, and Muslims
I took it from a catholic viewpoint. Only one way to salvation. Only one true religion.
Oakman wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: whole religion vs faith argument I guess I am not familiar with that one, at least not by that name.
Faith is the belief in a deity, an internal thing that may have external manifestations. Religion is a set of things you have to do, an algorithm that only requires action, drawn up by people, often as the result of a professed faith. In the worst case, religion is what everyone complains about - the requirement to profess a doctrine and conduct a set of rites or face the consequences now rather than in the after life. In the Christian spectrum, it goes from "salvation by grace alone through faith alone" Evangelical Protestant (various) "I got baptized and went to Communion, so I'll got to heaven" Catholic, some others "Everyone gets to heaven" Universalism "If I don't follow everything exactly right, I'm going to hell" Evangelical Protestant (various) "Do what I tell you or you are going to hell and soon" Most of them at one point, few now (cont)
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
I will take your word on both sides of that statement
Don't get your panties bunched, I'm just pointing out that I have passed puberty (with flying colors) and he seems to have gone directly from being a preteen to menopause without passing anything but gallstones.
RichardM1 wrote:
Faith is the belief in a deity, an internal thing that may have external manifestations.
Okay, I got you: deism vs theism. I realise you were brought up in the One True Church, but it's my impression that modern Catholic Theology accepts the possibility that there are other paths to Heaven and other foods to eat on Friday, as well.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
we need to remember that a large portion of the New Testament was written years after the crucifixion of Yeshua, mostly by men who were pretending they were someone else with a better claim to knowing what they were talking about.
I've heard people say that, but not seen documentation. Mark is a good example - it is traditionally attributed to 'Mark', and people say it wasn't, therefore the Bible is flawed. The attribution is not in the document itself. Mathew probably related what Peter told him. There are a couple of letters that people say the same kind of thing about, but it comes down to dueling PhD theses.
Oakman wrote:
we might also consider that "the Bible" is the translation of a translation of a translation - unless you, of course, are one of the folks who has read the earliest
Guilty. I have Hebrew for the OT, and Greek for the NT. I don't know the languages, but I have translation tools. I use them when there is conflict in the translations, or if it is a particular sticking point. I can not learn the languages in the ancient forms or colloquialisms, but I can at least see if there are inconsistencies. I don't have a particle accelerator, but sometimes I experiment with billiard balls :) (I have proved the uncertainty principle - the location or momentum of the que, I can have one, but not the other, sometimes I have neither.) I know people who KNOW the KJ (as originally dictated by God translated) is what God meant, and that everything before or since has been the work of the Devil.
Oakman wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: Do you think there is absolute truth? If there is, I don't imagine I am equipped to know it. Nor, as near as I can tell, is anyone else.
(scratching head) IIRC, you seem to believe in QM, experimental evidence and all. I believe that is a description of an absolute truth in our universe. Not the final detailed description, but a piece along the way. I agree we can't comprehend the totality of truth, all at once, but I believe we can understand parts, like QM and GR, and I believe that is also the case at the moral level.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
therefore the Bible is flawed
Don't put words in my mouth. I said it was ghostwritten and I think there's more evidence - some of it internal - than your dealing with, but even if Mark wrote it, he was a man, he had an agenda, he had a memory that wasn't perfect and he put his shoes on, one foot at a time. In otherwords it's flawed because it is manmade. Do you mean Aramaic and Attic Greek? You are a true scholar.
RichardM1 wrote:
I know people who KNOW the KJ (as originally dictated by God translated) is what God meant
Well given that there's textual evidence to suggest that Shakespeare wrote the words for the final adaptation - which is what it really is - I'm will to grant the chance of divine inspiration, if not guidance. His words will outlast every authentic translation written since.
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe that is a description of an absolute truth in our universe.
Absolute truth would be, I believe, as deadly as absolute zero.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I will take your word on both sides of that statement
Don't get your panties bunched, I'm just pointing out that I have passed puberty (with flying colors) and he seems to have gone directly from being a preteen to menopause without passing anything but gallstones.
RichardM1 wrote:
Faith is the belief in a deity, an internal thing that may have external manifestations.
Okay, I got you: deism vs theism. I realise you were brought up in the One True Church, but it's my impression that modern Catholic Theology accepts the possibility that there are other paths to Heaven and other foods to eat on Friday, as well.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I realise you were brought up in the One True Church,
No. I was brought up Catholic. Now I'm non-denominational Evangelical Christian. There is no fanatic like a convert. :laugh:
Oakman wrote:
Okay, I got you: deism vs theism.
More like thought life vs ritual, internal vs external, personal vs institutional.
Oakman wrote:
gallstones
Is that what we call BS now?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
therefore the Bible is flawed
Don't put words in my mouth. I said it was ghostwritten and I think there's more evidence - some of it internal - than your dealing with, but even if Mark wrote it, he was a man, he had an agenda, he had a memory that wasn't perfect and he put his shoes on, one foot at a time. In otherwords it's flawed because it is manmade. Do you mean Aramaic and Attic Greek? You are a true scholar.
RichardM1 wrote:
I know people who KNOW the KJ (as originally dictated by God translated) is what God meant
Well given that there's textual evidence to suggest that Shakespeare wrote the words for the final adaptation - which is what it really is - I'm will to grant the chance of divine inspiration, if not guidance. His words will outlast every authentic translation written since.
RichardM1 wrote:
I believe that is a description of an absolute truth in our universe.
Absolute truth would be, I believe, as deadly as absolute zero.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: therefore the Bible is flawed Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't I was talking about arguments I had heard from people.
Oakman wrote:
In otherwords it's flawed
Stop putting words in your mouth ;P
Oakman wrote:
he was a man, he had an agenda, he had a memory that wasn't perfect and he put his shoes on, one foot at a time
I figure if God is able to create the Universe, has a detailed understanding of the application of quantum mechanics at all levels, has already figured out Grand Unification, set the the whole process in motion that lead to Christ coming at the right time, a minor thing like having people write what He wants them to, when He wants them to, is no big deal. Same with translations, they are as correct as God wants them to be - I know some are wrong, and I check things out, but I have faith that God is doing things the way He wants.
Oakman wrote:
You are a true scholar.
No, but I've seen one on TV. OT was written in Hebrew, with just a few Aramaic chapters in the whole thing. NT in mainly Greek, with just a touch of Aramaic, but I use the Greek translations of the Aramaic. (except things like "Abba - Father").
Oakman wrote:
Absolute truth would be, I believe, as deadly as absolute zero.
Absolutely certain of that, are we?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Oakman wrote:
RichardM1 wrote: therefore the Bible is flawed Don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't I was talking about arguments I had heard from people.
Oakman wrote:
In otherwords it's flawed
Stop putting words in your mouth ;P
Oakman wrote:
he was a man, he had an agenda, he had a memory that wasn't perfect and he put his shoes on, one foot at a time
I figure if God is able to create the Universe, has a detailed understanding of the application of quantum mechanics at all levels, has already figured out Grand Unification, set the the whole process in motion that lead to Christ coming at the right time, a minor thing like having people write what He wants them to, when He wants them to, is no big deal. Same with translations, they are as correct as God wants them to be - I know some are wrong, and I check things out, but I have faith that God is doing things the way He wants.
Oakman wrote:
You are a true scholar.
No, but I've seen one on TV. OT was written in Hebrew, with just a few Aramaic chapters in the whole thing. NT in mainly Greek, with just a touch of Aramaic, but I use the Greek translations of the Aramaic. (except things like "Abba - Father").
Oakman wrote:
Absolute truth would be, I believe, as deadly as absolute zero.
Absolutely certain of that, are we?
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
having people write what He wants them to, when He wants them to, is no big deal.
That's certainly logical, though it took you awhile to list your a priori. But just because it's internally consistent, doesn't mean it reflects or explains the universe. Doesn't mean it doesn't, of course, just that it all has to be taken on belief. The Wiccans "Summerland" is equally consistant and logical, too - and requires a number of a priori. I've sometimes wondered if the LDS church's theology falls apart if you don't believe Christ became a Flying Serpent in South America. That's the problem with logical constructs.
RichardM1 wrote:
Absolutely certain of that, are we?
Closest approximation is as far as I go ever with being certain, In this case I don't think there's enough evidence to use the word at all. Nonetheless I liked the phrase.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
RichardM1 wrote:
having people write what He wants them to, when He wants them to, is no big deal.
That's certainly logical, though it took you awhile to list your a priori. But just because it's internally consistent, doesn't mean it reflects or explains the universe. Doesn't mean it doesn't, of course, just that it all has to be taken on belief. The Wiccans "Summerland" is equally consistant and logical, too - and requires a number of a priori. I've sometimes wondered if the LDS church's theology falls apart if you don't believe Christ became a Flying Serpent in South America. That's the problem with logical constructs.
RichardM1 wrote:
Absolutely certain of that, are we?
Closest approximation is as far as I go ever with being certain, In this case I don't think there's enough evidence to use the word at all. Nonetheless I liked the phrase.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Closest approximation is as far as I go ever with being certain, In this case I don't think there's enough evidence to use the word at all. Nonetheless I liked the phrase.
I grant you, you said "I believe" to qualify the statement :)
Oakman wrote:
though it took you awhile to list your a priori.
First logical place. We only got on Bible authenticity in the round before this. As far as internal consistency, I can't talk to Wiccan beliefs, but there are hard revisions in the LDS cannon that lead one to question its authority, and major disagreements between the OT/NT and the Mormon specific books. Internal consistency is not as easy as it looks. Now if you talk FSM, it takes it to an art form. edit Nice conversation, I appreciate it. Have a good weekend. /edit
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.