Theists find glee in the free will and soul-making theories so as to exonerate God of allowing the horrors. The problem of Heaven finds that they just bray rationalizations.
My friend Graham Oppy notes in "Arguing about Gods:" [I]f the absence of temptation and the presence of divinity are not incompatible with the existence of signicant freedom, then what explanation is to be given of the presence of temptatiion and the absence in divinity in the earthly existence of free human agents? Given these problems, it does not seem plausible to supppose that one can appeal to the nature of the hevenly envvironment in order to explain the contingent absence of evil from heaven.
. . .
Given that it is a contigent matter whether there is evil in heaven, what reason do we have for believing for believing there is no evil in heaven, or indeed, what reason do we have for believing that life in heaven is any way better than life on earth."
So, without special pleading and rationalizations, how can theists maintain that if there is free will in Heaven and no wrong-doing, there should not be the same here in the first place? It is irrelevant to posit the expulsion from Eden as the reason as that is implied in the problem.
This problem points to the incompatability of His ommipotence and omnibenevolence and thus goes with the incompatability problems so as to show that He is a vacuous notion and thus one should be ignostic about Him. Also this shows that one does not need Him as an explanation of why evil when we have natural answers as the presumption of naturalism and the Razor so show.
[ skeptic griggsy, griggs1947]
Perhaps 'heaven' may be better described as an awareness of the all possible beauty that existence has to offer, in Reality? – Like a pre-cognitive intuition that sentient existence itself is the most beautiful thing possible, but not quite ready to believe in itself?
In which case, we are already 'in it', but don't yet realise. 'Heaven' is a realisation of actual Truth, which we can find in our minds, so that we may truly start living. Not another made-up fantasy that we only apparently see after 'death'!
g.
In which case, we are already 'in it', but don't yet realise. 'Heaven' is a realisation of actual Truth, which we can find in our minds, so that we may truly start living. Not another made-up fantasy that we only apparently see after 'death'!
g.
Gorgeous, that is as close to Heaven as anyone will ever get! 
This thread is a follow-up of the definitive refutation of free will as theodicy. I will have more to say when others reply. The topic shows the incompatability of omnibenevolence and omnipotence, thus a part of the ignostic-Ockham challenge.Thanks,G.
Hey, Issachar and Sent ,if you are still around! The blahs get me now and then so that I do not post as wanted.[ griggs1947]
This thread is a follow-up of the definitive refutation of free will as theodicy. I will have more to say when others reply. The topic shows the incompatability of omnibenevolence and omnipotence, thus a part of the ignostic-Ockham challenge.Thanks,G.Hey, Issachar and Sent ,if you are still around! The blahs get me now and then so that I do not post as wanted.[ griggs1947]
QUOTE
'Heaven' is a realisation of actual Truth
"Actual" truth as opposed to another kind of truth? Science finds answers; those who want truth seem to want their own version of "truth".
Physfan
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+May 16 2008, 10:56 AM)
Theists find glee in the free will and soul-making theories so as to exonerate God of allowing the horrors. The problem of Heaven finds that they just bray rationalizations.
My friend Graham Oppy notes in "Arguing about Gods:" [I]f the absence of temptation and the presence of divinity are not incompatible with the existence of signicant freedom, then what explanation is to be given of the presence of temptatiion and the absence in divinity in the earthly existence of free human agents? Given these problems, it does not seem plausible to supppose that one can appeal to the nature of the hevenly envvironment in order to explain the contingent absence of evil from heaven.
. . .
Given that it is a contigent matter whether there is evil in heaven, what reason do we have for believing for believing there is no evil in heaven, or indeed, what reason do we have for believing that life in heaven is any way better than life on earth."
So, without special pleading and rationalizations, how can theists maintain that if there is free will in Heaven and no wrong-doing, there should not be the same here in the first place? It is irrelevant to posit the expulsion from Eden as the reason as that is implied in the problem.
This problem points to the incompatability of His ommipotence and omnibenevolence and thus goes with the incompatability problems so as to show that He is a vacuous notion and thus one should be ignostic about Him. Also this shows that one does not need Him as an explanation of why evil when we have natural answers as the presumption of naturalism and the Razor so show.
[ skeptic griggsy, griggs1947]
Heaven is not problematic, but your use of the word "contingent" is.
God does not need to be "exonerated" it is your own poor understanding of the concept that is in error.
The problems you state are:
"[I]f the absence of temptation and the presence of divinity are not incompatible with the existence of signicant freedom, then what explanation is to be given of the presence of temptatiion and the absence in divinity in the earthly existence of free human agents?"
So first, no temptation + presence of God (Heaven) does not exclude freedom
then why presence of temptation and absence of God for humans?
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
Secondly, God IS present in the "earthly existence of free human agents". So your argument does not make sense to me.
The point I think you are missing, is that if God were to take over your life directly, preventing all evil and disappointment, he would do it not just for you but for everyone. What a dismal grey sameness to that existence for us it would be. That would TRULY be hellish, not heaven. If that is your idea of Presence of Divinity, I want no part of it.
You are given guidance and a conscience, and must make your OWN choices, and suffer your own pains and tribulations. Your own meager attempts and feeble victories, your accomplishments great and small, are in CONQUERING adversity, not being shielded from it.
So a God can easily be Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, without doing everything or even ANYTHING for you. By letting you do it yourself, it is actually a gift and opportunity to succeed and excel. Or to fail and suffer.
My friend Graham Oppy notes in "Arguing about Gods:" [I]f the absence of temptation and the presence of divinity are not incompatible with the existence of signicant freedom, then what explanation is to be given of the presence of temptatiion and the absence in divinity in the earthly existence of free human agents? Given these problems, it does not seem plausible to supppose that one can appeal to the nature of the hevenly envvironment in order to explain the contingent absence of evil from heaven.
. . .
Given that it is a contigent matter whether there is evil in heaven, what reason do we have for believing for believing there is no evil in heaven, or indeed, what reason do we have for believing that life in heaven is any way better than life on earth."
So, without special pleading and rationalizations, how can theists maintain that if there is free will in Heaven and no wrong-doing, there should not be the same here in the first place? It is irrelevant to posit the expulsion from Eden as the reason as that is implied in the problem.
This problem points to the incompatability of His ommipotence and omnibenevolence and thus goes with the incompatability problems so as to show that He is a vacuous notion and thus one should be ignostic about Him. Also this shows that one does not need Him as an explanation of why evil when we have natural answers as the presumption of naturalism and the Razor so show.
[ skeptic griggsy, griggs1947]
Heaven is not problematic, but your use of the word "contingent" is.
God does not need to be "exonerated" it is your own poor understanding of the concept that is in error.
The problems you state are:
"[I]f the absence of temptation and the presence of divinity are not incompatible with the existence of signicant freedom, then what explanation is to be given of the presence of temptatiion and the absence in divinity in the earthly existence of free human agents?"
So first, no temptation + presence of God (Heaven) does not exclude freedom
then why presence of temptation and absence of God for humans?
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
Secondly, God IS present in the "earthly existence of free human agents". So your argument does not make sense to me.
The point I think you are missing, is that if God were to take over your life directly, preventing all evil and disappointment, he would do it not just for you but for everyone. What a dismal grey sameness to that existence for us it would be. That would TRULY be hellish, not heaven. If that is your idea of Presence of Divinity, I want no part of it.
You are given guidance and a conscience, and must make your OWN choices, and suffer your own pains and tribulations. Your own meager attempts and feeble victories, your accomplishments great and small, are in CONQUERING adversity, not being shielded from it.
So a God can easily be Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, without doing everything or even ANYTHING for you. By letting you do it yourself, it is actually a gift and opportunity to succeed and excel. Or to fail and suffer.
Heaven has no problems other than a total lack of evidence relating to its existance. It must clear this first hurdle before it can contend with any others. I'm not asking for proof of its existance I'm just asking for some shred of something that could make suspecting its existance an acceptable stance. I know its tempting to latch onto the idea that there is a paradise waiting for us on the other side of death, but try to view the situation objectively rather than selfishly.
QUOTE (DB+)
Heaven is not problematic, but your use of the word "contingent" is.
God does not need to be "exonerated" it is your own poor understanding of the concept that is in error.
The concept of god or heaven? As a theist, would you not meant the nature of god or heaven sicne, as a theist and RC, both are to be seen as factual?
Your religion for one.
Your religion for one.
I am not aware of that argument.
You are not aware of a great deal.
Again, your religion claims to speak to what it will be. Are you now doubting those claim of your religion and religious leaders? That would make you a lapsed Catholic and I have heard from at least one religious nut that there is nothing sadder than a lapsed Catholic.
Again, your religion claims to speak to what it will be. Are you now doubting those claim of your religion and religious leaders? That would make you a lapsed Catholic and I have heard from at least one religious nut that there is nothing sadder than a lapsed Catholic.
How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts.
Limited and conditioned as they maybe. Again, from a ration point of view, one would need to find material support for any such construct rather than to blindly believe that such existed.
As is your blind speculation. You are missing the more material argument present so cogently by skepticgriggsy.
As is your blind speculation. You are missing the more material argument present so cogently by skepticgriggsy.
The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
More happy magical musings.
Really? Then providing material proof of such should be easy then. As far as not making sense to you, not that big of a shock. You are one that seeks to force other to live by your religious rules.
Really? Then providing material proof of such should be easy then. As far as not making sense to you, not that big of a shock. You are one that seeks to force other to live by your religious rules.
The point I think you are missing, is that if God were to take over your life directly, preventing all evil and disappointment, he would do it not just for you but for everyone.
And if frogs had wings…
Considering that most god construct are simply extensions of mankind’s fears and desires, this claim is banal at best.
Considering that most god construct are simply extensions of mankind’s fears and desires, this claim is banal at best.
That would TRULY be hellish, not heaven.
Again, you are in conflict with the “official “line from the xian religion.
Your idea of god is something that most rational people would not want any part of considering your desire to see all live under your religious laws.
Your idea of god is something that most rational people would not want any part of considering your desire to see all live under your religious laws.
So a God can easily be Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, without doing everything or even ANYTHING for you.
And therefore nicely covering that cognitive dissidence created by the claims of the xian god versus the “actions” of xian god.
As trite as your excuse, why did you just not resort to “God’s will is a mystery to mankind?”
Right. Back to the freedom of choice that isn’t. You are free to choose god or not to choose god, but if you do not choose god you will burn for eternity.
But, always remember, god still loves you.
Comforting as any god mythos or concept may be, if one does exists it surely cannot be the limited and sadistic god portrayed in the xian bible.
I know many honest and devout theist find comfort in such a god, but I for one cannot.
And feel free to continue to cower form any of my posts. Your continued trolling (both in the modern and classical sense) is still material support for the claims regarding both your posts and your action on this forum.
If you were as secure in your faith as you pretend to be, then you would not so easily take offence at or rant against any who legitimately call into question any claims of any religious faith based upon reason and rational thought.
God does not need to be "exonerated" it is your own poor understanding of the concept that is in error.
The concept of god or heaven? As a theist, would you not meant the nature of god or heaven sicne, as a theist and RC, both are to be seen as factual?
QUOTE
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
Your religion for one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? |
Your religion for one.
I am not aware of that argument.
You are not aware of a great deal.
QUOTE
How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven?
Again, your religion claims to speak to what it will be. Are you now doubting those claim of your religion and religious leaders? That would make you a lapsed Catholic and I have heard from at least one religious nut that there is nothing sadder than a lapsed Catholic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? |
Again, your religion claims to speak to what it will be. Are you now doubting those claim of your religion and religious leaders? That would make you a lapsed Catholic and I have heard from at least one religious nut that there is nothing sadder than a lapsed Catholic.
How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts.
Limited and conditioned as they maybe. Again, from a ration point of view, one would need to find material support for any such construct rather than to blindly believe that such existed.
QUOTE
I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless.
As is your blind speculation. You are missing the more material argument present so cogently by skepticgriggsy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. |
As is your blind speculation. You are missing the more material argument present so cogently by skepticgriggsy.
The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
More happy magical musings.
QUOTE
Secondly, God IS present in the "earthly existence of free human agents". So your argument does not make sense to me.
Really? Then providing material proof of such should be easy then. As far as not making sense to you, not that big of a shock. You are one that seeks to force other to live by your religious rules.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Secondly, God IS present in the "earthly existence of free human agents". So your argument does not make sense to me. |
Really? Then providing material proof of such should be easy then. As far as not making sense to you, not that big of a shock. You are one that seeks to force other to live by your religious rules.
The point I think you are missing, is that if God were to take over your life directly, preventing all evil and disappointment, he would do it not just for you but for everyone.
And if frogs had wings…
QUOTE
What a dismal grey sameness to that existence for us it would be.
Considering that most god construct are simply extensions of mankind’s fears and desires, this claim is banal at best.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What a dismal grey sameness to that existence for us it would be. |
Considering that most god construct are simply extensions of mankind’s fears and desires, this claim is banal at best.
That would TRULY be hellish, not heaven.
Again, you are in conflict with the “official “line from the xian religion.
QUOTE
If that is your idea of Presence of Divinity, I want no part of it.
Your idea of god is something that most rational people would not want any part of considering your desire to see all live under your religious laws.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If that is your idea of Presence of Divinity, I want no part of it. |
Your idea of god is something that most rational people would not want any part of considering your desire to see all live under your religious laws.
So a God can easily be Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, without doing everything or even ANYTHING for you.
And therefore nicely covering that cognitive dissidence created by the claims of the xian god versus the “actions” of xian god.
As trite as your excuse, why did you just not resort to “God’s will is a mystery to mankind?”
QUOTE
By letting you do it yourself, it is actually a gift and opportunity to succeed and excel. Or to fail and suffer.
Right. Back to the freedom of choice that isn’t. You are free to choose god or not to choose god, but if you do not choose god you will burn for eternity.
But, always remember, god still loves you.
Comforting as any god mythos or concept may be, if one does exists it surely cannot be the limited and sadistic god portrayed in the xian bible.
I know many honest and devout theist find comfort in such a god, but I for one cannot.
And feel free to continue to cower form any of my posts. Your continued trolling (both in the modern and classical sense) is still material support for the claims regarding both your posts and your action on this forum.
If you were as secure in your faith as you pretend to be, then you would not so easily take offence at or rant against any who legitimately call into question any claims of any religious faith based upon reason and rational thought.
king of the Straw man at it again I see..
The concept of god or heaven? As a theist, would you not meant the nature of god or heaven sicne, as a theist and RC, both are to be seen as factual?
by whom, you? Do not make claims about the Catholic religion without supporting it with a source.
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
Your religion for one.
Source please, you will forgive me if I do not take your word on what catholics believe. I found no such thing in a cursory search.
You are not aware of a great deal.
Really? so support your assertion.
Again, your religion claims to speak to what it will be. Are you now doubting those claim of your religion and religious leaders? That would make you a lapsed Catholic and I have heard from at least one religious nut that there is nothing sadder than a lapsed Catholic.
Are YOU claiming to be such a source? If you are claiming such, support it. Source please.
Limited and conditioned as they maybe. Again, from a ration point of view, one would need to find material support for any such construct rather than to blindly believe that such existed.
and the pointless ranting continues...in discussion on a SUBJECTIVE topic yuo are asking for material support. One may BELIEVE a thing without knowing it.
As is your blind speculation. You are missing the more material argument present so cogently by skepticgriggsy.
More happy magical musings.
Really? Then providing material proof of such should be easy then. As far as not making sense to you, not that big of a shock. You are one that seeks to force other to live by your religious rules.
And more of your silliness. If it is so easy YOU do it. Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact.
And if frogs had wings…
The French would have one more weird culinary dish I am sure.
Considering that most god construct are simply extensions of mankind’s fears and desires, this claim is banal at best.
Again, you are in conflict with the “official “line from the xian religion.
do provide sources that I am in "conflict" with.
Your idea of god is something that most rational people would not want any part of considering your desire to see all live under your religious laws.
More ravening imaginations...
And therefore nicely covering that cognitive dissidence created by the claims of the xian god versus the “actions” of xian god.
As trite as your excuse, why did you just not resort to “God’s will is a mystery to mankind?”
Right. Back to the freedom of choice that isn’t. You are free to choose god or not to choose god, but if you do not choose god you will burn for eternity.
But, always remember, god still loves you.
Comforting as any god mythos or concept may be, if one does exists it surely cannot be the limited and sadistic god portrayed in the xian bible.
I know many honest and devout theist find comfort in such a god, but I for one cannot.
And feel free to continue to cower form any of my posts. Your continued trolling (both in the modern and classical sense) is still material support for the claims regarding both your posts and your action on this forum.
If you were as secure in your faith as you pretend to be, then you would not so easily take offence at or rant against any who legitimately call into question any claims of any religious faith based upon reason and rational thought.
Meh, your petty insults do not faze me, I am long inured to your juvenile methods.
Your next post will be another lengthy snarky content-devoid ranting, demanding "proof of claim of fact" or some other such, even though it is you making unsubstantiated claims.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
The concept of god or heaven? As a theist, would you not meant the nature of god or heaven sicne, as a theist and RC, both are to be seen as factual?
by whom, you? Do not make claims about the Catholic religion without supporting it with a source.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
Your religion for one.
Source please, you will forgive me if I do not take your word on what catholics believe. I found no such thing in a cursory search.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
You are not aware of a great deal.
Really? so support your assertion.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
Again, your religion claims to speak to what it will be. Are you now doubting those claim of your religion and religious leaders? That would make you a lapsed Catholic and I have heard from at least one religious nut that there is nothing sadder than a lapsed Catholic.
Are YOU claiming to be such a source? If you are claiming such, support it. Source please.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
Limited and conditioned as they maybe. Again, from a ration point of view, one would need to find material support for any such construct rather than to blindly believe that such existed.
and the pointless ranting continues...in discussion on a SUBJECTIVE topic yuo are asking for material support. One may BELIEVE a thing without knowing it.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
As is your blind speculation. You are missing the more material argument present so cogently by skepticgriggsy.
More happy magical musings.
Really? Then providing material proof of such should be easy then. As far as not making sense to you, not that big of a shock. You are one that seeks to force other to live by your religious rules.
And more of your silliness. If it is so easy YOU do it. Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
And if frogs had wings…
The French would have one more weird culinary dish I am sure.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
Considering that most god construct are simply extensions of mankind’s fears and desires, this claim is banal at best.
Again, you are in conflict with the “official “line from the xian religion.
do provide sources that I am in "conflict" with.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
Your idea of god is something that most rational people would not want any part of considering your desire to see all live under your religious laws.
More ravening imaginations...
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 04:15 AM)
And therefore nicely covering that cognitive dissidence created by the claims of the xian god versus the “actions” of xian god.
As trite as your excuse, why did you just not resort to “God’s will is a mystery to mankind?”
Right. Back to the freedom of choice that isn’t. You are free to choose god or not to choose god, but if you do not choose god you will burn for eternity.
But, always remember, god still loves you.
Comforting as any god mythos or concept may be, if one does exists it surely cannot be the limited and sadistic god portrayed in the xian bible.
I know many honest and devout theist find comfort in such a god, but I for one cannot.
And feel free to continue to cower form any of my posts. Your continued trolling (both in the modern and classical sense) is still material support for the claims regarding both your posts and your action on this forum.
If you were as secure in your faith as you pretend to be, then you would not so easily take offence at or rant against any who legitimately call into question any claims of any religious faith based upon reason and rational thought.
Meh, your petty insults do not faze me, I am long inured to your juvenile methods.
Your next post will be another lengthy snarky content-devoid ranting, demanding "proof of claim of fact" or some other such, even though it is you making unsubstantiated claims.
Here is a source for a catholic take on Heaven,
Heaven is being with God forever, face-to-face. We can only say, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it so much as dawned on man what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). If God has created earthly ecstasies, what must his greatest creation—heaven—be! On the other hand, hell is the condition of those who choose spiritual death with complete awareness and freedom, and remain in the attitude as they die. Finally, Catholics believe that those who die in God's grace but with some lingering self-centeredness will be purified before they will see God face-to-face.
QUOTE (Leonard Foley+ O.F.M.)
Heaven is being with God forever, face-to-face. We can only say, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it so much as dawned on man what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). If God has created earthly ecstasies, what must his greatest creation—heaven—be! On the other hand, hell is the condition of those who choose spiritual death with complete awareness and freedom, and remain in the attitude as they die. Finally, Catholics believe that those who die in God's grace but with some lingering self-centeredness will be purified before they will see God face-to-face.
QUOTE (Physfan+Jun 14 2008, 11:11 PM)
"Actual" truth as opposed to another kind of truth? Science finds answers; those who want truth seem to want their own version of "truth".
Physfan
I agree!
g.
Physfan
I agree!
g.
QUOTE (DB+)
king of the Straw man at it again I see..
You can call me whatever name or names you like, but once again you jump so easily when challenged and in a typical fashion.
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
Do not make claims about the Catholic religion without supporting it with a source.
Again you forget I was raised in the religion you adopted later in life. And again, are you trying to claim that god and heaven are not seen as factual by members of the RC faith?
If so, then I think you are the one who would need a source for that claim.
Again, raised in the faith unlike you. I did not see a source for your claim that there would be or is temptation in heaven.
Again, raised in the faith unlike you. I did not see a source for your claim that there would be or is temptation in heaven.
I found no such thing in a cursory search.
Again, you would have to cite proof of your notion that temptation exists in heaven.
I have to support the assertion that the concepts of god and heaven are seen as fact to Roman Catholics? I seriously think not.
I have to support the assertion that the concepts of god and heaven are seen as fact to Roman Catholics? I seriously think not.
Are YOU claiming to be such a source?
As a former member of the RC faith, actually yes.
Sure, right after you support your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as fact and that there is temptation in heaven.
I know you claim to be an RC and all but many times in the past your knowledge of that faith has proven to be rather lacking.
Sure, right after you support your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as fact and that there is temptation in heaven.
I know you claim to be an RC and all but many times in the past your knowledge of that faith has proven to be rather lacking.
and the pointless ranting continues...in discussion on a SUBJECTIVE topic yuo are asking for material support.
You are speaking as if what you claim are facts. If these are again just your hollow opinions, then there is no debating that which is not based upon material facts.
Yes, it is called blind faith and typical goes hand in hand with religion.
Yes, it is called blind faith and typical goes hand in hand with religion.
And more of your silliness. If it is so easy YOU do it.
I am not the one making claim about a magical land that we go to after we die.
I couldn’t have said it better myself deadbeat. Hell, that is soo funny, it should end up in a sig or two.
I couldn’t have said it better myself deadbeat. Hell, that is soo funny, it should end up in a sig or two.
do provide sources that I am in "conflict" with.
You did question the existence of god and heaven. That is in conflict with what most xians believe.
So, you are not the one who claimed the establishment clause need to be removed from the constitution and that all faiths and religions need to be considered in the making of laws? (rhetorical)
Yes, DB, what I claimed is fact. You seek to make other live under your religious laws.
So, you are not the one who claimed the establishment clause need to be removed from the constitution and that all faiths and religions need to be considered in the making of laws? (rhetorical)
Yes, DB, what I claimed is fact. You seek to make other live under your religious laws.
Meh, your petty insults do not faze me,
Unless you are god, then the “insults” were not about you per say. What an ego to make such a claim after I call into question the claims and actions of your god.
And again, my posts fazed you enough considering your ego led you to reply to me in the first place.
So much so that you not only reply to me after a very easy baiting posts and could not address the cognitive dissidence I listed, but again resorted to just ignoring that which you cannot face. That in and of itself is a perfect illustration of the CD I speak of.
So much so that you not only reply to me after a very easy baiting posts and could not address the cognitive dissidence I listed, but again resorted to just ignoring that which you cannot face. That in and of itself is a perfect illustration of the CD I speak of.
Your next post will be another lengthy snarky content-devoid ranting, demanding "proof of claim of fact" or some other such, even though it is you making unsubstantiated claims
I have yet to be snarky. And again, you are a convert to the faith I was raised in and have gotten many basic items wrong about that faith in the past.
You claimed there is temptation in heaven, and that god and heaven may not exists. Where are your sources to back up these claims?
Next you will be telling me that hell is not considered a bad place due to it meaning a separation from god.
Next time you “convert” to a religion, try to do a better job of studying the basic fundamental of that religion.
Gee, it doesn’t say anything about temptation in heaven and seems to disagree with your quandary that god or heaven does not exist.
You can call me whatever name or names you like, but once again you jump so easily when challenged and in a typical fashion.
QUOTE
by whom, you?
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by whom, you? |
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
Do not make claims about the Catholic religion without supporting it with a source.
Again you forget I was raised in the religion you adopted later in life. And again, are you trying to claim that god and heaven are not seen as factual by members of the RC faith?
If so, then I think you are the one who would need a source for that claim.
QUOTE
Source please, you will forgive me if I do not take your word on what catholics believe.
Again, raised in the faith unlike you. I did not see a source for your claim that there would be or is temptation in heaven.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Source please, you will forgive me if I do not take your word on what catholics believe. |
Again, raised in the faith unlike you. I did not see a source for your claim that there would be or is temptation in heaven.
I found no such thing in a cursory search.
Again, you would have to cite proof of your notion that temptation exists in heaven.
QUOTE
Really? so support your assertion.
I have to support the assertion that the concepts of god and heaven are seen as fact to Roman Catholics? I seriously think not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Really? so support your assertion. |
I have to support the assertion that the concepts of god and heaven are seen as fact to Roman Catholics? I seriously think not.
Are YOU claiming to be such a source?
As a former member of the RC faith, actually yes.
QUOTE
If you are claiming such, support it. Source please.
Sure, right after you support your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as fact and that there is temptation in heaven.
I know you claim to be an RC and all but many times in the past your knowledge of that faith has proven to be rather lacking.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you are claiming such, support it. Source please. |
Sure, right after you support your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as fact and that there is temptation in heaven.
I know you claim to be an RC and all but many times in the past your knowledge of that faith has proven to be rather lacking.
and the pointless ranting continues...in discussion on a SUBJECTIVE topic yuo are asking for material support.
You are speaking as if what you claim are facts. If these are again just your hollow opinions, then there is no debating that which is not based upon material facts.
QUOTE
One may BELIEVE a thing without knowing it.
Yes, it is called blind faith and typical goes hand in hand with religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One may BELIEVE a thing without knowing it. |
Yes, it is called blind faith and typical goes hand in hand with religion.
And more of your silliness. If it is so easy YOU do it.
I am not the one making claim about a magical land that we go to after we die.
QUOTE
Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact.
I couldn’t have said it better myself deadbeat. Hell, that is soo funny, it should end up in a sig or two. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact. |
I couldn’t have said it better myself deadbeat. Hell, that is soo funny, it should end up in a sig or two. do provide sources that I am in "conflict" with.
You did question the existence of god and heaven. That is in conflict with what most xians believe.
QUOTE
More ravening imaginations...
So, you are not the one who claimed the establishment clause need to be removed from the constitution and that all faiths and religions need to be considered in the making of laws? (rhetorical)
Yes, DB, what I claimed is fact. You seek to make other live under your religious laws.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More ravening imaginations... |
So, you are not the one who claimed the establishment clause need to be removed from the constitution and that all faiths and religions need to be considered in the making of laws? (rhetorical)
Yes, DB, what I claimed is fact. You seek to make other live under your religious laws.
Meh, your petty insults do not faze me,
Unless you are god, then the “insults” were not about you per say. What an ego to make such a claim after I call into question the claims and actions of your god.
And again, my posts fazed you enough considering your ego led you to reply to me in the first place.
QUOTE
I am long inured to your juvenile methods.
So much so that you not only reply to me after a very easy baiting posts and could not address the cognitive dissidence I listed, but again resorted to just ignoring that which you cannot face. That in and of itself is a perfect illustration of the CD I speak of.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am long inured to your juvenile methods. |
So much so that you not only reply to me after a very easy baiting posts and could not address the cognitive dissidence I listed, but again resorted to just ignoring that which you cannot face. That in and of itself is a perfect illustration of the CD I speak of.
Your next post will be another lengthy snarky content-devoid ranting, demanding "proof of claim of fact" or some other such, even though it is you making unsubstantiated claims
I have yet to be snarky. And again, you are a convert to the faith I was raised in and have gotten many basic items wrong about that faith in the past.
You claimed there is temptation in heaven, and that god and heaven may not exists. Where are your sources to back up these claims?
Next you will be telling me that hell is not considered a bad place due to it meaning a separation from god.
Next time you “convert” to a religion, try to do a better job of studying the basic fundamental of that religion.
QUOTE
Here is a source for a catholic take on Heaven,
Gee, it doesn’t say anything about temptation in heaven and seems to disagree with your quandary that god or heaven does not exist.
QUOTE (DeadBeat+)
Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact.
And speaking of this, does this mean that since your definition of religion includes political parties, that they also contain no facts or knowledge?
I would tend to agree, but you also claim that science is also a religion. Oh such convolution you operate on.
But please, do continue. The more you post, the more it becomes apparent that you have not really spent time in thoughtful reflections on what it is you believe and the full ramification of such.
In other words, you appear just to be trolling for the sake of it.
And speaking of this, does this mean that since your definition of religion includes political parties, that they also contain no facts or knowledge?
I would tend to agree, but you also claim that science is also a religion. Oh such convolution you operate on.
But please, do continue. The more you post, the more it becomes apparent that you have not really spent time in thoughtful reflections on what it is you believe and the full ramification of such.
In other words, you appear just to be trolling for the sake of it.
I love the whole faith over knowledge and fact idea. Faith of this kind is basically wishful thinking as it is based on absolutely nothing. "Questioning these ideas is wrong, god has chosen to provide no evidence of his existence to find out who will be strong enough to have faith in his existence." "God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith, that's all." Sounds to me like someone wrote something that they knew wasn't true and that they knew there was no evidence of so they imagined a system in which the fact that there is no evidence is explained away as a purposely designed situation. It really makes me sick. I think it is low down, and I think it is dishonorable. People peddle this sort of thing to children at a young age and basically indoctrinate them and immunize them against the world of logic in the hopes of keeping them locked in a delusional fantasy. In America many people are actually afraid to publicly declare themselves to be atheists or agnostics. Many of my personal friends fall into that category. When someone does declare they threaten the illusion that keeps everyone complacent and them force the people around them to momentarily open their eyes to the reality of the situation which is not something that the faithful enjoy. I ceased thinking it was funny some time ago.
Deadbeat, the challenge to theists is that as God is not overbearing in Heaven , why should He be so here? To aver that He would overwhelm us here but not there is the challenge in question, which you are avoiding to answer!
Oppy and John Loftus allow that there could be temptation there but then as with Satan in that myth, God then would throw people out. Thus in that respect both would be the same. But most people [ as gene splicer so well notes/ thanks,gs./] assume it will be so glorious there without any wrongdoing whatsoever. In which case, why not here in the first place. The myth of the Garden of Eden avoids the challenge by not letting the two be free of the possibility of wrongdoing [ It would be so stupid to punish anybody for knowing right from wrong! Plus to condemn their posterity to damnation makes more divne wrongdoing! To compound that with human sacrifice for expiation of wrongdoing is madness! So, the writers made Yahweh pathological!].
Michael Martin notes:[This] " calls into question God's motive for creating or at least permitting an unjust world, yet why is the secular world so unjust when the afterlife is not? The existence of Heaven shows that moral choice is compatible with a better world than ours, so why did not God make Earth more llke heaven ?"
It is theists who like John Hick, who posit a wrong-free Heaven, yet chides us naturalists for following the logic of the situation; he makes a straw man out of the all or nothing fallacy that we want paradise. We state that there could be so much less wrongdoing without people being without the possibility of doing wrong, but as theists generally posit such a wonderful Heaven, we throw their notion back at them , so this indeed does follow!
Theists try to exonerate God of that creation or permitting of evil as Martin so notes. Theodicy is just one attempt after another to do that exoneration!
People would be more in the image of Him were they free but not able to do wrong!
I do indeed have more to show that this is a real challenge to theists that they cannot so summarily dismiss. All there efforts are mere rationalizations for that creation or permitting of evil.
Fellow naturalists, thanks for the comments and what others do you propose to show the total inadequacy of those rationalizations? Oh, Alvin Platinga as much as admits that, so, he resorts to mystery, which is another rationalization.
[ We ignostics note that this resort of mystery just adds to the other mysteries surrounding God, showing that He is no first cause whatsoever: that is, a real explanation.][ Under the profile of griggs 1947 , one will find the ignostic-Ockham challenges under a similar title. I hope soon to start the thread arguments about God where I will put together my other positions showing probably no God- the ignostic-Ockham, the presumption of naturalism and no theistic evolution unless others want to add to the old existing threads.]
Oppy and John Loftus allow that there could be temptation there but then as with Satan in that myth, God then would throw people out. Thus in that respect both would be the same. But most people [ as gene splicer so well notes/ thanks,gs./] assume it will be so glorious there without any wrongdoing whatsoever. In which case, why not here in the first place. The myth of the Garden of Eden avoids the challenge by not letting the two be free of the possibility of wrongdoing [ It would be so stupid to punish anybody for knowing right from wrong! Plus to condemn their posterity to damnation makes more divne wrongdoing! To compound that with human sacrifice for expiation of wrongdoing is madness! So, the writers made Yahweh pathological!].
Michael Martin notes:[This] " calls into question God's motive for creating or at least permitting an unjust world, yet why is the secular world so unjust when the afterlife is not? The existence of Heaven shows that moral choice is compatible with a better world than ours, so why did not God make Earth more llke heaven ?"
It is theists who like John Hick, who posit a wrong-free Heaven, yet chides us naturalists for following the logic of the situation; he makes a straw man out of the all or nothing fallacy that we want paradise. We state that there could be so much less wrongdoing without people being without the possibility of doing wrong, but as theists generally posit such a wonderful Heaven, we throw their notion back at them , so this indeed does follow!
Theists try to exonerate God of that creation or permitting of evil as Martin so notes. Theodicy is just one attempt after another to do that exoneration!
People would be more in the image of Him were they free but not able to do wrong!
I do indeed have more to show that this is a real challenge to theists that they cannot so summarily dismiss. All there efforts are mere rationalizations for that creation or permitting of evil.
Fellow naturalists, thanks for the comments and what others do you propose to show the total inadequacy of those rationalizations? Oh, Alvin Platinga as much as admits that, so, he resorts to mystery, which is another rationalization.
[ We ignostics note that this resort of mystery just adds to the other mysteries surrounding God, showing that He is no first cause whatsoever: that is, a real explanation.][ Under the profile of griggs 1947 , one will find the ignostic-Ockham challenges under a similar title. I hope soon to start the thread arguments about God where I will put together my other positions showing probably no God- the ignostic-Ockham, the presumption of naturalism and no theistic evolution unless others want to add to the old existing threads.]
And the latest irrelevant outraged rant from Gene...lets examine...
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
Hard scientific fact? You find it odd? That is strange, you see when your straw men are examined, nothing but fluff and silliness remain. religion is based on BELIEF AND FAITH, not scientific fact. Some certainly do think so, but they are not me, nor do they represent MY church.
Again you forget I was raised in the religion you adopted later in life. And again, are you trying to claim that god and heaven are not seen as factual by members of the RC faith?
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church. The Catholic church defines itself. So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes. Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
If so, then I think you are the one who would need a source for that claim.
AH back to your standard tactics, you make wild ridiculous claims of my religion, and then tell ME it is my duty to prove them wrong. Wrong answer.
Again, raised in the faith unlike you. I did not see a source for your claim that there would be or is temptation in heaven.
HAHAH that was NOT MY claim, I was responding to skepticgriggsy's argument, as a matter of fact I asserted the something entirely different, that temptation in Heaven would be completely irrelevant. Like selling bottled water to fish.
Again, you would have to cite proof of your notion that temptation exists in heaven.
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
I have to support the assertion that the concepts of god and heaven are seen as fact to Roman Catholics? I seriously think not.
HAHA since YOU made the assertion, it is YOUR duty to support it. If it is obvious, why it should be quite simple to do, no?
The fact is you just spout bigoted biased nonsense about a religion you never even understood, and haughtily claim superiority. Not checking your facts would get you fired as a journalist. Not checking them here just makes you look silly.
Are YOU claiming to be such a source?
As a former member of the RC faith, actually yes.
I am a CURRENT member of the Roman Catholic faith, and your knowledge and beliefs about it are ridiculous.
Well since we have established that YOU have nothing to do with deciding or disseminating actual catholic doctrine, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that you are completely wrong on MANY points, you are NOT. You are not even an active practicing member.
One of the things that bothers you so much IS the Magisterium, how catholic doctrine is determined and disseminated, and yet you cannot be bothered to source it. Just your fevered imaginings of what you think they said.
Sure, right after you support your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as fact and that there is temptation in heaven.
HAHAh and here we go again, you make silly accusations, then insist I prove them wrong.
I know you claim to be an RC and all but many times in the past your knowledge of that faith has proven to be rather lacking.
you mean those times I actually provided Catholic sources REFUTING your inane and unbased claims?
You are speaking as if what you claim are facts. If these are again just your hollow opinions, then there is no debating that which is not based upon material facts.
Religion itself is not based on facts. Doctrine however IS written and researchable.
Yes, it is called blind faith and typical goes hand in hand with religion.
Duh. Religion IS about Faith and belief. All faith is blind. If it were not, it would be knowledge, not faith.
I am not the one making claim about a magical land that we go to after we die.
Oh yes you are, attacking the presence or nonexistence of "temptation" in Heaven is doing exactly that.
Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact.
I couldn’t have said it better myself deadbeat. Hell, that is soo funny, it should end up in a sig or two.
Truth is a surprising thing, it must be a rare treat for you, do put it in your signature.
do provide sources that I am in "conflict" with.
You did question the existence of god and heaven. That is in conflict with what most xians believe.
Really? Quote my actual statement, then a source refuting it, very simple. The reason you do not, is because your lies become transparent.
So, you are not the one who claimed the establishment clause need to be removed from the constitution and that all faiths and religions need to be considered in the making of laws? (rhetorical)
HAHAHAHAH (wiping a tear)
Do quote where I said that please. I said SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is not only not in the constitution, it is a concept that appears only in a personal letter from, who was it, Monroe? It has taken on strength and popular belief, but it is not directly a constitutional construct.
It (sep of church and state) is a simplistic and erroneous idea (if in general a good-hearted and well-intentioned one), and has been referred to and embodied in case law. In spirit, it is how government is and does and should work, but it has been erroneously used to attempt to eliminate religion completely from governmental consideration.
Yes, DB, what I claimed is fact. You seek to make other live under your religious laws.
And your usual misrepresentation. That is NOT true.
My point is religion CANNOT be eliminated from government completely. Because LAWS and PUNISHMENT are based on MORALITY and ETHICS, which are derived from (always have been until the most recent times) RELIGION.
In modern times, our form of government has turned that on its head, removing established religions from the office of governing. Religions (especially big organized ones like mine, Catholicism) WERE an integral part of the government, and sometimes WERE the government. Not allowing religions to directly participate, prefer themselves, or bias or discriminate against OTHER religions prevents those abuses by religions, especially organized ones. THAT IS GOOD< I APPROVE OF AND HAVE PERSONALLY SACRIFICED TO DEFEND THAT.
However, ethics and morality are subjective, and are (most commonly even these days) best described by whatever our religious faith is. What we believe. Regardless of the tradition and ceremony..the THOU SHALT NOT...whatever stuff is what I am talking about. It informs our opinions on many issues like Abortion, womens rights, Gay rights, shoot you name it, murder, terrorism...the list is infinite.
ALL of our religions participate INDIRECTLY. Those of us who vote, vote our conscience. We choose what is wrong and right, and we elect people who make choices of that nature for us too, our representative democracy. By representing those beliefs (indirectly, and all of the population, and their combined beliefs must be considered) enacting laws and enforcing them based on those beliefs.
IN ADDITION, when those beliefs made into laws might improperly trespass on important individual rights and freedoms, we rely on the constitution and our Supreme Court to strike bad laws down, or modify them.
Unless you are god, then the “insults” were not about you per say. What an ego to make such a claim after I call into question the claims and actions of your god.
And again, my posts fazed you enough considering your ego led you to reply to me in the first place.
If only to educate others as to your folly. I am under no illusions as to the imperviousness of your brilliant imaginings, and how resistant they are to facts, truth, reason or any kind of suasion short of armed conflict possibly.
So much so that you not only reply to me after a very easy baiting posts and could not address the cognitive dissidence I listed, but again resorted to just ignoring that which you cannot face. That in and of itself is a perfect illustration of the CD I speak of.
HAHA except all you do is make wild fallacious claims, then insist I prove you wrong. Then you make general indignant posts about how I have "ignored your" whatever you call them, which are mostly just indignant exhortations of false outrage.
As I repeatedly say, make an assertion, or attack mine, enough of the childish ranting.
I have yet to be snarky.
snark·y –adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang. testy or irritable; short.
HAHAHAHAHA
And again, you are a convert to the faith I was raised in and have gotten many basic items wrong about that faith in the past.
Oh boy. So you, who are demonstrably wrong about almost everything about the catholic church, are more informed than a previously baptist convert, who went through complete indoctrination and training on every aspect of catholic belief prior to and requisite to accepting and being accepted as a member? Not exactly.
You claimed there is temptation in heaven, and that god and heaven may not exists. Where are your sources to back up these claims?
Quote the claims.
Next you will be telling me that hell is not considered a bad place due to it meaning a separation from god.
Nope, that is WHAT makes it a bad place, denial of the presence of God. Not your denial, rather being denied his presence from you.
Next time you “convert” to a religion, try to do a better job of studying the basic fundamental of that religion.
Like I would take advice from you on that.
Gee, it doesn’t say anything about temptation in heaven and seems to disagree with your quandary that god or heaven does not exist.
Again, stop making up arguments and quandaries, actually post something I SAID.
Deadbeat, the challenge to theists is that as God is not overbearing in Heaven , why should He be so here?
How is God overbearing to you here? Should I have a talk with him for you? But seriously, I do not understand what you mean by that.
To aver that He would overwhelm us here but not there is the challenge in question, which you are avoiding to answer!
Uh, no, not avoiding. How is he overwhelming us here? By setting requirements, and then relying COMPLETELY on us to make use of our free will to follow them as best we can?
Is it LIMITING you, even when you must do it yourself, is that overwhelming?
Oppy and John Loftus allow that there could be temptation there but then as with Satan in that myth, God then would throw people out. Thus in that respect both would be the same.
Straw man tactics here. You invent a conundrum about "temptation", and then make both possible outcomes impossible. The paradox is one entirely of your own making.
Temptation in heaven is irrelevant.
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
But most people [ as gene splicer so well notes/ thanks,gs./] assume it will be so glorious there without any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Which as I just described above is entirely possible.
In which case, why not here in the first place. The myth of the Garden of Eden avoids the challenge by not letting the two be free of the possibility of wrongdoing [ It would be so stupid to punish anybody for knowing right from wrong! Plus to condemn their posterity to damnation makes more divne wrongdoing! To compound that with human sacrifice for expiation of wrongdoing is madness! So, the writers made Yahweh pathological!].
So there you have it, right and wrong, free will and the ability to choose.
Michael Martin notes:[This] " calls into question God's motive for creating or at least permitting an unjust world, yet why is the secular world so unjust when the afterlife is not?
What use would a "just" world be? Where everyone automatically did the right thing every time and in every example? Where all was entirely fair and equal? Whether it was imposed on ourselves, or by God, it would be miserable, boring, and without purpose it seems to me.
The existence of Heaven shows that moral choice is compatible with a better world than ours, so why did not God make Earth more llke heaven ?"
How should I know?
It is theists who like John Hick, who posit a wrong-free Heaven, yet chides us naturalists for following the logic of the situation; he makes a straw man out of the all or nothing fallacy that we want paradise. We state that there could be so much less wrongdoing without people being without the possibility of doing wrong, but as theists generally posit such a wonderful Heaven, we throw their notion back at them , so this indeed does follow!
Hehe not exactly, slow down and take it one topic at a time.
Theists try to exonerate God of that creation or permitting of evil as Martin so notes. Theodicy is just one attempt after another to do that exoneration!
People would be more in the image of Him were they free but not able to do wrong!
Not having a choice is not being free. It is that simple. Freedom comes with consequences, perfection is no longer attainable.
I do indeed have more to show that this is a real challenge to theists that they cannot so summarily dismiss. All there efforts are mere rationalizations for that creation or permitting of evil.
I will not "summarily dismiss" y0ou or your ideas, I welcome them.
Fellow naturalists, thanks for the comments and what others do you propose to show the total inadequacy of those rationalizations? Oh, Alvin Platinga as much as admits that, so, he resorts to mystery, which is another rationalization.
[ We ignostics note that this resort of mystery just adds to the other mysteries surrounding God, showing that He is no first cause whatsoever: that is, a real explanation.][ Under the profile of griggs 1947 , one will find the ignostic-Ockham challenges under a similar title. I hope soon to start the thread arguments about God where I will put together my other positions showing probably no God- the ignostic-Ockham, the presumption of naturalism and no theistic evolution unless others want to add to the old existing threads.]
Do continue, I love a good discussion.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
Hard scientific fact? You find it odd? That is strange, you see when your straw men are examined, nothing but fluff and silliness remain. religion is based on BELIEF AND FAITH, not scientific fact. Some certainly do think so, but they are not me, nor do they represent MY church.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Again you forget I was raised in the religion you adopted later in life. And again, are you trying to claim that god and heaven are not seen as factual by members of the RC faith?
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church. The Catholic church defines itself. So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes. Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
If so, then I think you are the one who would need a source for that claim.
AH back to your standard tactics, you make wild ridiculous claims of my religion, and then tell ME it is my duty to prove them wrong. Wrong answer.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Again, raised in the faith unlike you. I did not see a source for your claim that there would be or is temptation in heaven.
HAHAH that was NOT MY claim, I was responding to skepticgriggsy's argument, as a matter of fact I asserted the something entirely different, that temptation in Heaven would be completely irrelevant. Like selling bottled water to fish.
Again, you would have to cite proof of your notion that temptation exists in heaven.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
I have to support the assertion that the concepts of god and heaven are seen as fact to Roman Catholics? I seriously think not.
HAHA since YOU made the assertion, it is YOUR duty to support it. If it is obvious, why it should be quite simple to do, no?
The fact is you just spout bigoted biased nonsense about a religion you never even understood, and haughtily claim superiority. Not checking your facts would get you fired as a journalist. Not checking them here just makes you look silly.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Are YOU claiming to be such a source?
As a former member of the RC faith, actually yes.
I am a CURRENT member of the Roman Catholic faith, and your knowledge and beliefs about it are ridiculous.
Well since we have established that YOU have nothing to do with deciding or disseminating actual catholic doctrine, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that you are completely wrong on MANY points, you are NOT. You are not even an active practicing member.
One of the things that bothers you so much IS the Magisterium, how catholic doctrine is determined and disseminated, and yet you cannot be bothered to source it. Just your fevered imaginings of what you think they said.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Sure, right after you support your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as fact and that there is temptation in heaven.
HAHAh and here we go again, you make silly accusations, then insist I prove them wrong.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
I know you claim to be an RC and all but many times in the past your knowledge of that faith has proven to be rather lacking.
you mean those times I actually provided Catholic sources REFUTING your inane and unbased claims?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
You are speaking as if what you claim are facts. If these are again just your hollow opinions, then there is no debating that which is not based upon material facts.
Religion itself is not based on facts. Doctrine however IS written and researchable.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Yes, it is called blind faith and typical goes hand in hand with religion.
Duh. Religion IS about Faith and belief. All faith is blind. If it were not, it would be knowledge, not faith.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
I am not the one making claim about a magical land that we go to after we die.
Oh yes you are, attacking the presence or nonexistence of "temptation" in Heaven is doing exactly that.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Religion is about faith and belief, not knowledge and fact.
I couldn’t have said it better myself deadbeat. Hell, that is soo funny, it should end up in a sig or two. Truth is a surprising thing, it must be a rare treat for you, do put it in your signature.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
do provide sources that I am in "conflict" with.
You did question the existence of god and heaven. That is in conflict with what most xians believe.
Really? Quote my actual statement, then a source refuting it, very simple. The reason you do not, is because your lies become transparent.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
So, you are not the one who claimed the establishment clause need to be removed from the constitution and that all faiths and religions need to be considered in the making of laws? (rhetorical)
HAHAHAHAH (wiping a tear)
Do quote where I said that please. I said SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is not only not in the constitution, it is a concept that appears only in a personal letter from, who was it, Monroe? It has taken on strength and popular belief, but it is not directly a constitutional construct.
It (sep of church and state) is a simplistic and erroneous idea (if in general a good-hearted and well-intentioned one), and has been referred to and embodied in case law. In spirit, it is how government is and does and should work, but it has been erroneously used to attempt to eliminate religion completely from governmental consideration.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Yes, DB, what I claimed is fact. You seek to make other live under your religious laws.
And your usual misrepresentation. That is NOT true.
My point is religion CANNOT be eliminated from government completely. Because LAWS and PUNISHMENT are based on MORALITY and ETHICS, which are derived from (always have been until the most recent times) RELIGION.
In modern times, our form of government has turned that on its head, removing established religions from the office of governing. Religions (especially big organized ones like mine, Catholicism) WERE an integral part of the government, and sometimes WERE the government. Not allowing religions to directly participate, prefer themselves, or bias or discriminate against OTHER religions prevents those abuses by religions, especially organized ones. THAT IS GOOD< I APPROVE OF AND HAVE PERSONALLY SACRIFICED TO DEFEND THAT.
However, ethics and morality are subjective, and are (most commonly even these days) best described by whatever our religious faith is. What we believe. Regardless of the tradition and ceremony..the THOU SHALT NOT...whatever stuff is what I am talking about. It informs our opinions on many issues like Abortion, womens rights, Gay rights, shoot you name it, murder, terrorism...the list is infinite.
ALL of our religions participate INDIRECTLY. Those of us who vote, vote our conscience. We choose what is wrong and right, and we elect people who make choices of that nature for us too, our representative democracy. By representing those beliefs (indirectly, and all of the population, and their combined beliefs must be considered) enacting laws and enforcing them based on those beliefs.
IN ADDITION, when those beliefs made into laws might improperly trespass on important individual rights and freedoms, we rely on the constitution and our Supreme Court to strike bad laws down, or modify them.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Unless you are god, then the “insults” were not about you per say. What an ego to make such a claim after I call into question the claims and actions of your god.
And again, my posts fazed you enough considering your ego led you to reply to me in the first place.
If only to educate others as to your folly. I am under no illusions as to the imperviousness of your brilliant imaginings, and how resistant they are to facts, truth, reason or any kind of suasion short of armed conflict possibly.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
So much so that you not only reply to me after a very easy baiting posts and could not address the cognitive dissidence I listed, but again resorted to just ignoring that which you cannot face. That in and of itself is a perfect illustration of the CD I speak of.
HAHA except all you do is make wild fallacious claims, then insist I prove you wrong. Then you make general indignant posts about how I have "ignored your" whatever you call them, which are mostly just indignant exhortations of false outrage.
As I repeatedly say, make an assertion, or attack mine, enough of the childish ranting.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
I have yet to be snarky.
QUOTE (dictionary.com+ snarky)
snark·y –adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang. testy or irritable; short.
HAHAHAHAHA
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
And again, you are a convert to the faith I was raised in and have gotten many basic items wrong about that faith in the past.
Oh boy. So you, who are demonstrably wrong about almost everything about the catholic church, are more informed than a previously baptist convert, who went through complete indoctrination and training on every aspect of catholic belief prior to and requisite to accepting and being accepted as a member? Not exactly.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
You claimed there is temptation in heaven, and that god and heaven may not exists. Where are your sources to back up these claims?
Quote the claims.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Next you will be telling me that hell is not considered a bad place due to it meaning a separation from god.
Nope, that is WHAT makes it a bad place, denial of the presence of God. Not your denial, rather being denied his presence from you.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Next time you “convert” to a religion, try to do a better job of studying the basic fundamental of that religion.
Like I would take advice from you on that.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 16 2008, 11:09 PM)
Gee, it doesn’t say anything about temptation in heaven and seems to disagree with your quandary that god or heaven does not exist.
Again, stop making up arguments and quandaries, actually post something I SAID.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 03:05 AM)
Hard scientific fact? You find it odd? That is strange, you see when your straw men are examined, nothing but fluff and silliness remain. religion is based on BELIEF AND FAITH, not scientific fact. Some certainly do think so, but they are not me, nor do they represent MY church.
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church. The Catholic church defines itself. So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes. Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church. The Catholic church defines itself. So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes. Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
Deadbeat, the challenge to theists is that as God is not overbearing in Heaven , why should He be so here?
How is God overbearing to you here? Should I have a talk with him for you? But seriously, I do not understand what you mean by that.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
To aver that He would overwhelm us here but not there is the challenge in question, which you are avoiding to answer!
Uh, no, not avoiding. How is he overwhelming us here? By setting requirements, and then relying COMPLETELY on us to make use of our free will to follow them as best we can?
Is it LIMITING you, even when you must do it yourself, is that overwhelming?
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
Oppy and John Loftus allow that there could be temptation there but then as with Satan in that myth, God then would throw people out. Thus in that respect both would be the same.
Straw man tactics here. You invent a conundrum about "temptation", and then make both possible outcomes impossible. The paradox is one entirely of your own making.
Temptation in heaven is irrelevant.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
But most people [ as gene splicer so well notes/ thanks,gs./] assume it will be so glorious there without any wrongdoing whatsoever.
Which as I just described above is entirely possible.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
In which case, why not here in the first place. The myth of the Garden of Eden avoids the challenge by not letting the two be free of the possibility of wrongdoing [ It would be so stupid to punish anybody for knowing right from wrong! Plus to condemn their posterity to damnation makes more divne wrongdoing! To compound that with human sacrifice for expiation of wrongdoing is madness! So, the writers made Yahweh pathological!].
So there you have it, right and wrong, free will and the ability to choose.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
Michael Martin notes:[This] " calls into question God's motive for creating or at least permitting an unjust world, yet why is the secular world so unjust when the afterlife is not?
What use would a "just" world be? Where everyone automatically did the right thing every time and in every example? Where all was entirely fair and equal? Whether it was imposed on ourselves, or by God, it would be miserable, boring, and without purpose it seems to me.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
The existence of Heaven shows that moral choice is compatible with a better world than ours, so why did not God make Earth more llke heaven ?"
How should I know?
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
It is theists who like John Hick, who posit a wrong-free Heaven, yet chides us naturalists for following the logic of the situation; he makes a straw man out of the all or nothing fallacy that we want paradise. We state that there could be so much less wrongdoing without people being without the possibility of doing wrong, but as theists generally posit such a wonderful Heaven, we throw their notion back at them , so this indeed does follow!
Hehe not exactly, slow down and take it one topic at a time.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
Theists try to exonerate God of that creation or permitting of evil as Martin so notes. Theodicy is just one attempt after another to do that exoneration!
People would be more in the image of Him were they free but not able to do wrong!
Not having a choice is not being free. It is that simple. Freedom comes with consequences, perfection is no longer attainable.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
I do indeed have more to show that this is a real challenge to theists that they cannot so summarily dismiss. All there efforts are mere rationalizations for that creation or permitting of evil.
I will not "summarily dismiss" y0ou or your ideas, I welcome them.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Jun 17 2008, 01:56 AM)
Fellow naturalists, thanks for the comments and what others do you propose to show the total inadequacy of those rationalizations? Oh, Alvin Platinga as much as admits that, so, he resorts to mystery, which is another rationalization.
[ We ignostics note that this resort of mystery just adds to the other mysteries surrounding God, showing that He is no first cause whatsoever: that is, a real explanation.][ Under the profile of griggs 1947 , one will find the ignostic-Ockham challenges under a similar title. I hope soon to start the thread arguments about God where I will put together my other positions showing probably no God- the ignostic-Ockham, the presumption of naturalism and no theistic evolution unless others want to add to the old existing threads.]
Do continue, I love a good discussion.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Jun 17 2008, 12:15 AM)
I love the whole faith over knowledge and fact idea. Faith of this kind is basically wishful thinking as it is based on absolutely nothing. "Questioning these ideas is wrong, god has chosen to provide no evidence of his existence to find out who will be strong enough to have faith in his existence." "God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith, that's all." Sounds to me like someone wrote something that they knew wasn't true and that they knew there was no evidence of so they imagined a system in which the fact that there is no evidence is explained away as a purposely designed situation. It really makes me sick. I think it is low down, and I think it is dishonorable. People peddle this sort of thing to children at a young age and basically indoctrinate them and immunize them against the world of logic in the hopes of keeping them locked in a delusional fantasy. In America many people are actually afraid to publicly declare themselves to be atheists or agnostics. Many of my personal friends fall into that category. When someone does declare they threaten the illusion that keeps everyone complacent and them force the people around them to momentarily open their eyes to the reality of the situation which is not something that the faithful enjoy. I ceased thinking it was funny some time ago.
(sigh)
Faith and Belief are not OVER knowledge and understanding. Knowledge and understanding SUPERCEDE faith and belief.
To KNOW something makes faith unnecessary.
There certainly are religions that fly in the face of scientific fact, but it is not all religions, and it is certainly not mine, the Roman Catholic Church.
That has not always been the case throughout history, but it is now.
(sigh)
Faith and Belief are not OVER knowledge and understanding. Knowledge and understanding SUPERCEDE faith and belief.
To KNOW something makes faith unnecessary.
There certainly are religions that fly in the face of scientific fact, but it is not all religions, and it is certainly not mine, the Roman Catholic Church.
That has not always been the case throughout history, but it is now.
Sigh... I s'pose it figures ye'd respond to everyone except the guy what brought up some evidence to prove yer implications that catholics don't believe in heaven n hell wrong...
Fer shame, son.
Fer shame, son.
QUOTE (DB+)
And the latest irrelevant outraged rant from Gene...lets examine...
So irrelevant that you spend yet more item replying.
And when or where did I mention anything about hard scientific fact regarding the concept of heaven or god?
Again, if you are going to try to debate what I stated, then do so. Do not use assumption or spin in trying to misclassify what I stated.
And when or where did I mention anything about hard scientific fact regarding the concept of heaven or god?
Again, if you are going to try to debate what I stated, then do so. Do not use assumption or spin in trying to misclassify what I stated.
religion is based on BELIEF AND FAITH, not scientific fact.
Yes, we al know if relying on nothing considered factual.
LOL. Right. Again, you know very little regarding your adopted faith. And was it not you yourself who claimed that your church accepted and embraced science, “true” science”?
LOL. Right. Again, you know very little regarding your adopted faith. And was it not you yourself who claimed that your church accepted and embraced science, “true” science”?
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church.
Fine then. Where is your source that supports your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as facts?
Where is your source that supports your claim that member soft the faith, RC or otherwise, think that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
As with many of your other claims, you seem to have overlooked to back it up with anything. You continue to demand that of others, but cannot seem to operate by those same rules.
Again, source for your claims?
Again, source for your claims?
So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes.
Again, source?
And if and when you can actually provide a source to prove me wrong, then you can make such a claim. Until then, your claim are just more of the hollow variety so frequently visited by you upon this forum.
And again, odd how you so easily dismiss one who was raised in the faith. But again, why not just call me a lapsed Catholic and claim that everything I was ever taught is now wrong since I am not longer an RC.
And if and when you can actually provide a source to prove me wrong, then you can make such a claim. Until then, your claim are just more of the hollow variety so frequently visited by you upon this forum.
And again, odd how you so easily dismiss one who was raised in the faith. But again, why not just call me a lapsed Catholic and claim that everything I was ever taught is now wrong since I am not longer an RC.
AH back to your standard tactics, you make wild ridiculous claims of my religion, and then tell ME it is my duty to prove them wrong. Wrong answer.
And you continue to misrepresent my posts or fail to simply adhere to the standard protocol of a debate.
Again DB, you made the claim that there is temptation in heaven, amongst others, but have yet to provide a source for this rather odd claim.
When challenged, you demand to be proven wrong and that those who challenge you provide sources.
Back up your claims rather than make more wild claims and then demand to be proven wrong.
And again, your adopted faith. And by many of my relatives standards, you would not be allowed to call yourself a RC considering you were not raised in the faith and are of the “American” variety.
Try to backpedal all you like, but you stated:
Try to backpedal all you like, but you stated:
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
So is this yet another time where you are arguing points fo topic that you do not really believe in just for the sake of arguing? You know, like you have admitted to doing in the past.
Again, I am not the one who stated:
Again, I am not the one who stated:
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
Rationally and reasonably no one of the xian faith would consider there to be temptation in heaven. You pose the question asking why there would be no temptation in heaven.
So as you have been asked, why do you think there would be temptation in heaven?
Unless you are just being argumentative for the sake of it, then you have to actually back up your claim.
Again, the religion I was raised in and one where I have illustrated your lack of understanding in the past. You just find it unacceptable that one I reached the age of reason, I rejected the faith that you eventually adopted as an adult.
And again you cannot honestly represent what I have stated in the past. I have never stated I was superior to the RC or RCC.
I have stated I rejected it for myself.
I have stated the my morals are superior to yours. I’m sure you see your moral and those of your adopted religion as one in the same to make such an irrational reach.
Again, the religion I was raised in and one where I have illustrated your lack of understanding in the past. You just find it unacceptable that one I reached the age of reason, I rejected the faith that you eventually adopted as an adult.
And again you cannot honestly represent what I have stated in the past. I have never stated I was superior to the RC or RCC.
I have stated I rejected it for myself.
I have stated the my morals are superior to yours. I’m sure you see your moral and those of your adopted religion as one in the same to make such an irrational reach.
Not checking your facts would get you fired as a journalist.
Wow. Such a moot point considering I an mot the one who argued or questioned that temptation exists in heaven. An I am not a journalists. Next moot tangent?
And misrepresenting what I have posted, resorting to intellectually dishonest action or trying to dismiss all that I was taught about the RC while growing up in the faith as irrelevant is the sign of an intellectual coward at best.
And misrepresenting what I have posted, resorting to intellectually dishonest action or trying to dismiss all that I was taught about the RC while growing up in the faith as irrelevant is the sign of an intellectual coward at best.
I am a CURRENT member of the Roman Catholic faith, and your knowledge and beliefs about it are ridiculous.
And again, you are a convert to the faith I was raised in and a poor one at that. I have shown in the past just how limited you knowledge of the RCC is in history alone.
And if my claim are so ridiculous, then it would be as for you to find and cite a source that backs you up on the question of temptation in heaven. Why have you yet to post it?
Dismissing me simply because I keep bringing up facts about the RC faith and the RCC that you simply were ignorant of, dismissing me because I am a person who rejected the faith you adopted later in life or dismissing me because I have a point of view you disagree with is not the same as “establishing” me as being wrong or not a legitimate source.
And yes you can continue to parrot that claim over and over, but as with so many of your other claim, that does not make it any more factual.
Dismissing me simply because I keep bringing up facts about the RC faith and the RCC that you simply were ignorant of, dismissing me because I am a person who rejected the faith you adopted later in life or dismissing me because I have a point of view you disagree with is not the same as “establishing” me as being wrong or not a legitimate source.
And yes you can continue to parrot that claim over and over, but as with so many of your other claim, that does not make it any more factual.
You are not even an active practicing member.
And that is irrelevant. You still ignore the fact that I was raised as a member of the faith. I spent the bulk of my formative years as a believer. You simply cannot accept the fact that I rejected what you adopted.
That rejection does not make what I was taught by RC’s with a lineage of faith that is unquestionable irrelevant simply because I no longer believe.
Source what? You made the argument that there will be temptation in heaven. Where it your Papal support for that?
Just your fevered imaginings of what you think they said.
Again, my lineage in the faith is not one of a latter-day convert such as yourself.
And again, being raised in the faith I learned much more than you as I have illustrated by your ignorance of the church and its history.
Source what? You made the argument that there will be temptation in heaven. Where it your Papal support for that?
Just your fevered imaginings of what you think they said.
Again, my lineage in the faith is not one of a latter-day convert such as yourself.
And again, being raised in the faith I learned much more than you as I have illustrated by your ignorance of the church and its history.
HAHAh and here we go again, you make silly accusations, then insist I prove them wrong.
Not al all. You argued that there would be temptation in heaven. Where is your Papal source?
What time? I know you have a problem going back even one page in a thread yet actually searching the forum, but you have yet to prove me wrong regarding anything about my claim of the RC or RCC. Cite exactly where you have proven me wrong unless of course these are more hollow claim of yours.
What time? I know you have a problem going back even one page in a thread yet actually searching the forum, but you have yet to prove me wrong regarding anything about my claim of the RC or RCC. Cite exactly where you have proven me wrong unless of course these are more hollow claim of yours.
Religion itself is not based on facts. Doctrine however IS written and researchable.
And again, where is your source for you to argue that temptation will exists in heaven? Did you forget it again?
Blind faith, yes, we know that.
Blind faith, yes, we know that.
All faith is blind.
And that is patently false. Just as with belief, faith is not the sole domain of religion no matter what “special” definitions you want to resort to.
Your thinking is much more simplistic than I thought.
I can have faith based upon your previous actions that you will not cite any sources and will continue to be driven by your ego to not only reply to me, but be as evasive and intellectually dishonest as you have in the past.
That faith is based upon your actions and has nothing to do with any religion.
Your thinking is much more simplistic than I thought.
I can have faith based upon your previous actions that you will not cite any sources and will continue to be driven by your ego to not only reply to me, but be as evasive and intellectually dishonest as you have in the past.
That faith is based upon your actions and has nothing to do with any religion.
Oh yes you are, attacking the presence or nonexistence of "temptation" in Heaven is doing exactly that.
You are claiming that temptation exists in heaven yet have not supplied any source. Where is it?
And the concept of heaven, the xian flavor, is well know. Arguing about one of its properties in not the same as you claiming that god and heaven were not fact to xians or RCs. “Scientific fact” is and intellectually dishonest doge on your part.
Your ever shifting “truth” is comfort to no one. You admitting that religion has nothing to do with facts and knowledge is a capital achievement. Nothing you post is worthy to be in my sig, but next time you crow about your religion and scientific fact, I will quote you regarding this statement.
Your ever shifting “truth” is comfort to no one. You admitting that religion has nothing to do with facts and knowledge is a capital achievement. Nothing you post is worthy to be in my sig, but next time you crow about your religion and scientific fact, I will quote you regarding this statement.
Really? Quote my actual statement, then a source refuting it, very simple. The reason you do not, is because your lies become transparent.
And considering I have quoted you in the past by linking to our claims and you dismissed them, why would I bother?
And now you claim that I lied? Sad that you cannot back up that claim either. You would have to prove intent with something other than your hollow word and opinion.
Again, I have cit4d and quoted you in the past only to have you ignore the quote, try in a rather juvenile way to attack me or you simply cowered away. Why would
I do all the work to have you act in the same way again?
Again, I have cit4d and quoted you in the past only to have you ignore the quote, try in a rather juvenile way to attack me or you simply cowered away. Why would
I do all the work to have you act in the same way again?
I said SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is not only not in the constitution, it is a concept that appears only in a personal letter from, who was it, Monroe?
You have also stated that the establishment clause would have to be or would be removed or overturned. You have also stated that all religions needed to be considered when it came to creating laws.
Yes, even though it has been found to be constitutional over and over. Odd thing that. So many hundreds of years of,(what did you call them?), activist judges.
Yes, even though it has been found to be constitutional over and over. Odd thing that. So many hundreds of years of,(what did you call them?), activist judges.
It (sep of church and state) is a simplistic and erroneous idea (if in general a good-hearted and well-intentioned one), and has been referred to and embodied in case law.
Not erroneous at all but fundamental and a cornerstone of our nation and laws.
Only in the mind of ignorant theists who think this is a xian nation.
Only in the mind of ignorant theists who think this is a xian nation.
And your usual misrepresentation. That is NOT true.
And yelling in posts does nothing to prove me wrong. But, my claim is true.
And your point would be wrong.
And your point would be wrong.
Because LAWS and PUNISHMENT are based on MORALITY and ETHICS, which are derived from (always have been until the most recent times) RELIGION.
And you are wrong again. You keep claiming, but are unable to support that claim, that all laws originated from religion. Of course, you have to resort to a “special” definition so broad and ridiculous that you even admitted that political parties wou8ld be considered religions.
It never was a part of the government considering the EC was part of our foundational laws.
It never was a part of the government considering the EC was part of our foundational laws.
Religions (especially big organized ones like mine, Catholicism) WERE an integral part of the government, and sometimes WERE the government.
Yes, and when in charge, your religion murdered those who pursues facts and science.
Not allowing religions to directly participate, prefer themselves, or bias or discriminate against OTHER religions prevents those abuses by religions, especially organized ones. THAT IS GOOD< I APPROVE OF AND HAVE PERSONALLY SACRIFICED TO DEFEND THAT.
Right. Personally sacrificed. That is to laugh.
And you seem to be lying considering how you want government to stop medical research base upon your religious laws and how you see secular as equal to atheist.
For you perhaps, but many do not need a religion to have morals and ethics.
For you perhaps, but many do not need a religion to have morals and ethics.
What we believe. Regardless of the tradition and ceremony..the THOU SHALT NOT...whatever stuff is what I am talking about. It informs our opinions on many issues like Abortion, womens rights, Gay rights, shoot you name it, murder, terrorism...the list is infinite.
And very limited if you are a RC on what your opinions are to be.
Constitutional republic not your mob rule you quoted so often until corrected.
By representing those beliefs (indirectly, and all of the population, and their combined beliefs must be considered) enacting laws and enforcing them based on those beliefs.
Note the added emphasis. I told you that you claimed that laws should be created based upon the consideration of all religions and religious laws. Thank you for admitting it.
And no matter how many of those who vote, no law can violate the constitution which many of your desired ones would.
Constitutional republic not your mob rule you quoted so often until corrected.
By representing those beliefs (indirectly, and all of the population, and their combined beliefs must be considered) enacting laws and enforcing them based on those beliefs.
Note the added emphasis. I told you that you claimed that laws should be created based upon the consideration of all religions and religious laws. Thank you for admitting it.
And no matter how many of those who vote, no law can violate the constitution which many of your desired ones would.
IN ADDITION, when those beliefs made into laws might improperly trespass on important individual rights and freedoms, we rely on the constitution and our
Supreme Court to strike bad laws down, or modify them
And they have over and over and have removed one religious -based laws after another. And that fact seems to be upsetting to you.
I’m sure ”others” can research anything that might have a question about. And it is not only myself who has challenged your claims.
I’m sure ”others” can research anything that might have a question about. And it is not only myself who has challenged your claims.
I am under no illusions as to the imperviousness of your brilliant imaginings, and how resistant they are to facts, truth, reason or any kind of suasion short of armed conflict possibly.
Wow. More violence in your posts. I’m shocked you simple did not make your “xian majority” veiled threat again.
And if my posts are so full of imagination and lies as you keep parroting over and over, why is it then that you have yet to cite one source to prove me in error?
I am not the one who constantly claim that if you leave a faith, then all you were taught about that faith is in error as you have done over and over with me when I have challenged your questionable if not laughable claims.
You do repeat thing over and over, but it is just hollow parroting of that which are you ill equip to back up.
I am not the one who constantly claim that if you leave a faith, then all you were taught about that faith is in error as you have done over and over with me when I have challenged your questionable if not laughable claims.
You do repeat thing over and over, but it is just hollow parroting of that which are you ill equip to back up.
“snark•y –adjective, snark•i•er, snark•i•est. Chiefly British Slang. testy or irritable; short. “
If you think my posts contain any such emotional content, then the fault is yours. But you do tend to see in posts whatever you want to see.
If you think my posts contain any such emotional content, then the fault is yours. But you do tend to see in posts whatever you want to see.
Oh boy. So you, who are demonstrably wrong about almost everything about the catholic church,
And where have you ever proven me wrong about the RC? You keep claiming this but have yet to actually do it.
Yes. You forgot, one who rejected his original faith to spite his parents. And you
also forgot that you lcaim to be a Baptists yet you called yourself a protestant before.
Yes. You forgot, one who rejected his original faith to spite his parents. And you
also forgot that you lcaim to be a Baptists yet you called yourself a protestant before.
who went through complete indoctrination and training on every aspect of catholic belief prior to and requisite to accepting and being accepted as a member?
Indoctrination yes, but training? You need to get your donation to he church back
Oh very much so. Odd how your “training” didn’t include so many fundamental facts about the RCC.
Oh very much so. Odd how your “training” didn’t include so many fundamental facts about the RCC.
Quote the claims.
Already did. Look up in the posts.
Considering you are a convert to the faith I rejected, and a questionable convert at that, yes.
Considering you are a convert to the faith I rejected, and a questionable convert at that, yes.
Again, stop making up arguments and quandaries, actually post something I SAID
Where is your source that supports your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as facts?
Where is your source that supports your claim that member soft the faith, RC or otherwise, think that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
Again, source for your claims?
Again, source?
HAHAH and here is you doing EXACTLY as I described.
Here is you MAKING A CLAIM FOR ME..and then above you ask for me to back it up...just classic.
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
And you continue to misrepresent my posts or fail to simply adhere to the standard protocol of a debate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Now from you that is funny. You wouldn't know "standard protocol" if it bit you in the keyboard.
Again DB, you made the claim that there is temptation in heaven, amongst others, but have yet to provide a source for this rather odd claim.
QUOTE (deadbeat)
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
I was actually responding to someone else asserting there is no temptation, by saying I do not know if there is, but IN MY OPINION it is irrelevant. So you cherry-pick something ridiculous, and then ask me to "provide a source for this claim".
So, to put it simply for someone obviously needing extreme simplicity, the source is ME, because "I think".
and the funnier part is, I actually SOURCED in an earlier post that agrees with what I said exactly.
Here is a source for a catholic take on Heaven,
Heaven is being with God forever, face-to-face. We can only say, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it so much as dawned on man what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). If God has created earthly ecstasies, what must his greatest creation—heaven—be! On the other hand, hell is the condition of those who choose spiritual death with complete awareness and freedom, and remain in the attitude as they die. Finally, Catholics believe that those who die in God's grace but with some lingering self-centeredness will be purified before they will see God face-to-face.
What catholics believe
I will not bother to even read the rest of this extraneous outraged blathering.
So irrelevant that you spend yet more item replying.
QUOTE
Hard scientific fact? You find it odd? That is strange, you see when your straw men are examined, nothing but fluff and silliness remain.
And when or where did I mention anything about hard scientific fact regarding the concept of heaven or god?
Again, if you are going to try to debate what I stated, then do so. Do not use assumption or spin in trying to misclassify what I stated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hard scientific fact? You find it odd? That is strange, you see when your straw men are examined, nothing but fluff and silliness remain. |
And when or where did I mention anything about hard scientific fact regarding the concept of heaven or god?
Again, if you are going to try to debate what I stated, then do so. Do not use assumption or spin in trying to misclassify what I stated.
religion is based on BELIEF AND FAITH, not scientific fact.
Yes, we al know if relying on nothing considered factual.
QUOTE
Some certainly do think so, but they are not me, nor do they represent MY church.
LOL. Right. Again, you know very little regarding your adopted faith. And was it not you yourself who claimed that your church accepted and embraced science, “true” science”?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some certainly do think so, but they are not me, nor do they represent MY church. |
LOL. Right. Again, you know very little regarding your adopted faith. And was it not you yourself who claimed that your church accepted and embraced science, “true” science”?
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church.
Fine then. Where is your source that supports your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as facts?
Where is your source that supports your claim that member soft the faith, RC or otherwise, think that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
As with many of your other claims, you seem to have overlooked to back it up with anything. You continue to demand that of others, but cannot seem to operate by those same rules.
QUOTE
The Catholic church defines itself.
Again, source for your claims?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Catholic church defines itself. |
Again, source for your claims?
So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes.
Again, source?
QUOTE
Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
And if and when you can actually provide a source to prove me wrong, then you can make such a claim. Until then, your claim are just more of the hollow variety so frequently visited by you upon this forum.
And again, odd how you so easily dismiss one who was raised in the faith. But again, why not just call me a lapsed Catholic and claim that everything I was ever taught is now wrong since I am not longer an RC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting. |
And if and when you can actually provide a source to prove me wrong, then you can make such a claim. Until then, your claim are just more of the hollow variety so frequently visited by you upon this forum.
And again, odd how you so easily dismiss one who was raised in the faith. But again, why not just call me a lapsed Catholic and claim that everything I was ever taught is now wrong since I am not longer an RC.
AH back to your standard tactics, you make wild ridiculous claims of my religion, and then tell ME it is my duty to prove them wrong. Wrong answer.
And you continue to misrepresent my posts or fail to simply adhere to the standard protocol of a debate.
Again DB, you made the claim that there is temptation in heaven, amongst others, but have yet to provide a source for this rather odd claim.
When challenged, you demand to be proven wrong and that those who challenge you provide sources.
Back up your claims rather than make more wild claims and then demand to be proven wrong.
And again, your adopted faith. And by many of my relatives standards, you would not be allowed to call yourself a RC considering you were not raised in the faith and are of the “American” variety.
QUOTE
HAHAH that was NOT MY claim, I was responding to skepticgriggsy's argument, as a matter of fact I asserted the something entirely different, that temptation in Heaven would be completely irrelevant. Like selling bottled water to fish.
Try to backpedal all you like, but you stated:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAH that was NOT MY claim, I was responding to skepticgriggsy's argument, as a matter of fact I asserted the something entirely different, that temptation in Heaven would be completely irrelevant. Like selling bottled water to fish. |
Try to backpedal all you like, but you stated:
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
So is this yet another time where you are arguing points fo topic that you do not really believe in just for the sake of arguing? You know, like you have admitted to doing in the past.
QUOTE
HAHA since YOU made the assertion, it is YOUR duty to support it. If it is obvious, why it should be quite simple to do, no?
Again, I am not the one who stated:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHA since YOU made the assertion, it is YOUR duty to support it. If it is obvious, why it should be quite simple to do, no? |
Again, I am not the one who stated:
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
Rationally and reasonably no one of the xian faith would consider there to be temptation in heaven. You pose the question asking why there would be no temptation in heaven.
So as you have been asked, why do you think there would be temptation in heaven?
Unless you are just being argumentative for the sake of it, then you have to actually back up your claim.
QUOTE
The fact is you just spout bigoted biased nonsense about a religion you never even understood, and haughtily claim superiority.
Again, the religion I was raised in and one where I have illustrated your lack of understanding in the past. You just find it unacceptable that one I reached the age of reason, I rejected the faith that you eventually adopted as an adult.
And again you cannot honestly represent what I have stated in the past. I have never stated I was superior to the RC or RCC.
I have stated I rejected it for myself.
I have stated the my morals are superior to yours. I’m sure you see your moral and those of your adopted religion as one in the same to make such an irrational reach.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact is you just spout bigoted biased nonsense about a religion you never even understood, and haughtily claim superiority. |
Again, the religion I was raised in and one where I have illustrated your lack of understanding in the past. You just find it unacceptable that one I reached the age of reason, I rejected the faith that you eventually adopted as an adult.
And again you cannot honestly represent what I have stated in the past. I have never stated I was superior to the RC or RCC.
I have stated I rejected it for myself.
I have stated the my morals are superior to yours. I’m sure you see your moral and those of your adopted religion as one in the same to make such an irrational reach.
Not checking your facts would get you fired as a journalist.
Wow. Such a moot point considering I an mot the one who argued or questioned that temptation exists in heaven. An I am not a journalists. Next moot tangent?
QUOTE
Not checking them here just makes you look silly.
And misrepresenting what I have posted, resorting to intellectually dishonest action or trying to dismiss all that I was taught about the RC while growing up in the faith as irrelevant is the sign of an intellectual coward at best.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not checking them here just makes you look silly. |
And misrepresenting what I have posted, resorting to intellectually dishonest action or trying to dismiss all that I was taught about the RC while growing up in the faith as irrelevant is the sign of an intellectual coward at best.
I am a CURRENT member of the Roman Catholic faith, and your knowledge and beliefs about it are ridiculous.
And again, you are a convert to the faith I was raised in and a poor one at that. I have shown in the past just how limited you knowledge of the RCC is in history alone.
And if my claim are so ridiculous, then it would be as for you to find and cite a source that backs you up on the question of temptation in heaven. Why have you yet to post it?
QUOTE
Well since we have established that YOU have nothing to do with deciding or disseminating actual catholic doctrine, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that you are completely wrong on MANY points, you are NOT.
Dismissing me simply because I keep bringing up facts about the RC faith and the RCC that you simply were ignorant of, dismissing me because I am a person who rejected the faith you adopted later in life or dismissing me because I have a point of view you disagree with is not the same as “establishing” me as being wrong or not a legitimate source.
And yes you can continue to parrot that claim over and over, but as with so many of your other claim, that does not make it any more factual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well since we have established that YOU have nothing to do with deciding or disseminating actual catholic doctrine, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that you are completely wrong on MANY points, you are NOT. |
Dismissing me simply because I keep bringing up facts about the RC faith and the RCC that you simply were ignorant of, dismissing me because I am a person who rejected the faith you adopted later in life or dismissing me because I have a point of view you disagree with is not the same as “establishing” me as being wrong or not a legitimate source.
And yes you can continue to parrot that claim over and over, but as with so many of your other claim, that does not make it any more factual.
You are not even an active practicing member.
And that is irrelevant. You still ignore the fact that I was raised as a member of the faith. I spent the bulk of my formative years as a believer. You simply cannot accept the fact that I rejected what you adopted.
That rejection does not make what I was taught by RC’s with a lineage of faith that is unquestionable irrelevant simply because I no longer believe.
QUOTE
One of the things that bothers you so much IS the Magisterium, how catholic doctrine is determined and disseminated, and yet you cannot be bothered to source it.
Source what? You made the argument that there will be temptation in heaven. Where it your Papal support for that?
Just your fevered imaginings of what you think they said.
Again, my lineage in the faith is not one of a latter-day convert such as yourself.
And again, being raised in the faith I learned much more than you as I have illustrated by your ignorance of the church and its history.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One of the things that bothers you so much IS the Magisterium, how catholic doctrine is determined and disseminated, and yet you cannot be bothered to source it. |
Source what? You made the argument that there will be temptation in heaven. Where it your Papal support for that?
Just your fevered imaginings of what you think they said.
Again, my lineage in the faith is not one of a latter-day convert such as yourself.
And again, being raised in the faith I learned much more than you as I have illustrated by your ignorance of the church and its history.
HAHAh and here we go again, you make silly accusations, then insist I prove them wrong.
Not al all. You argued that there would be temptation in heaven. Where is your Papal source?
QUOTE
you mean those times I actually provided Catholic sources REFUTING your inane and unbased claims?
What time? I know you have a problem going back even one page in a thread yet actually searching the forum, but you have yet to prove me wrong regarding anything about my claim of the RC or RCC. Cite exactly where you have proven me wrong unless of course these are more hollow claim of yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you mean those times I actually provided Catholic sources REFUTING your inane and unbased claims? |
What time? I know you have a problem going back even one page in a thread yet actually searching the forum, but you have yet to prove me wrong regarding anything about my claim of the RC or RCC. Cite exactly where you have proven me wrong unless of course these are more hollow claim of yours.
Religion itself is not based on facts. Doctrine however IS written and researchable.
And again, where is your source for you to argue that temptation will exists in heaven? Did you forget it again?
QUOTE
Duh. Religion IS about Faith and belief.
Blind faith, yes, we know that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Duh. Religion IS about Faith and belief. |
Blind faith, yes, we know that.
All faith is blind.
And that is patently false. Just as with belief, faith is not the sole domain of religion no matter what “special” definitions you want to resort to.
QUOTE
If it were not, it would be knowledge, not faith.
Your thinking is much more simplistic than I thought.
I can have faith based upon your previous actions that you will not cite any sources and will continue to be driven by your ego to not only reply to me, but be as evasive and intellectually dishonest as you have in the past.
That faith is based upon your actions and has nothing to do with any religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it were not, it would be knowledge, not faith. |
Your thinking is much more simplistic than I thought.
I can have faith based upon your previous actions that you will not cite any sources and will continue to be driven by your ego to not only reply to me, but be as evasive and intellectually dishonest as you have in the past.
That faith is based upon your actions and has nothing to do with any religion.
Oh yes you are, attacking the presence or nonexistence of "temptation" in Heaven is doing exactly that.
You are claiming that temptation exists in heaven yet have not supplied any source. Where is it?
And the concept of heaven, the xian flavor, is well know. Arguing about one of its properties in not the same as you claiming that god and heaven were not fact to xians or RCs. “Scientific fact” is and intellectually dishonest doge on your part.
QUOTE
Truth is a surprising thing, it must be a rare treat for you, do put it in your signature.
Your ever shifting “truth” is comfort to no one. You admitting that religion has nothing to do with facts and knowledge is a capital achievement. Nothing you post is worthy to be in my sig, but next time you crow about your religion and scientific fact, I will quote you regarding this statement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Truth is a surprising thing, it must be a rare treat for you, do put it in your signature. |
Your ever shifting “truth” is comfort to no one. You admitting that religion has nothing to do with facts and knowledge is a capital achievement. Nothing you post is worthy to be in my sig, but next time you crow about your religion and scientific fact, I will quote you regarding this statement.
Really? Quote my actual statement, then a source refuting it, very simple. The reason you do not, is because your lies become transparent.
And considering I have quoted you in the past by linking to our claims and you dismissed them, why would I bother?
And now you claim that I lied? Sad that you cannot back up that claim either. You would have to prove intent with something other than your hollow word and opinion.
QUOTE
Do quote where I said that please.
Again, I have cit4d and quoted you in the past only to have you ignore the quote, try in a rather juvenile way to attack me or you simply cowered away. Why would
I do all the work to have you act in the same way again?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do quote where I said that please. |
Again, I have cit4d and quoted you in the past only to have you ignore the quote, try in a rather juvenile way to attack me or you simply cowered away. Why would
I do all the work to have you act in the same way again?
I said SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is not only not in the constitution, it is a concept that appears only in a personal letter from, who was it, Monroe?
You have also stated that the establishment clause would have to be or would be removed or overturned. You have also stated that all religions needed to be considered when it came to creating laws.
QUOTE
It has taken on strength and popular belief, but it is not directly a constitutional construct.
Yes, even though it has been found to be constitutional over and over. Odd thing that. So many hundreds of years of,(what did you call them?), activist judges.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It has taken on strength and popular belief, but it is not directly a constitutional construct. |
Yes, even though it has been found to be constitutional over and over. Odd thing that. So many hundreds of years of,(what did you call them?), activist judges.
It (sep of church and state) is a simplistic and erroneous idea (if in general a good-hearted and well-intentioned one), and has been referred to and embodied in case law.
Not erroneous at all but fundamental and a cornerstone of our nation and laws.
QUOTE
In spirit, it is how government is and does and should work, but it has been erroneously used to attempt to eliminate religion completely from governmental consideration.
Only in the mind of ignorant theists who think this is a xian nation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In spirit, it is how government is and does and should work, but it has been erroneously used to attempt to eliminate religion completely from governmental consideration. |
Only in the mind of ignorant theists who think this is a xian nation.
And your usual misrepresentation. That is NOT true.
And yelling in posts does nothing to prove me wrong. But, my claim is true.
QUOTE
My point is religion CANNOT be eliminated from government completely.
And your point would be wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My point is religion CANNOT be eliminated from government completely. |
And your point would be wrong.
Because LAWS and PUNISHMENT are based on MORALITY and ETHICS, which are derived from (always have been until the most recent times) RELIGION.
And you are wrong again. You keep claiming, but are unable to support that claim, that all laws originated from religion. Of course, you have to resort to a “special” definition so broad and ridiculous that you even admitted that political parties wou8ld be considered religions.
QUOTE
In modern times, our form of government has turned that on its head, removing established religions from the office of governing.
It never was a part of the government considering the EC was part of our foundational laws.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In modern times, our form of government has turned that on its head, removing established religions from the office of governing. |
It never was a part of the government considering the EC was part of our foundational laws.
Religions (especially big organized ones like mine, Catholicism) WERE an integral part of the government, and sometimes WERE the government.
Yes, and when in charge, your religion murdered those who pursues facts and science.
Not allowing religions to directly participate, prefer themselves, or bias or discriminate against OTHER religions prevents those abuses by religions, especially organized ones. THAT IS GOOD< I APPROVE OF AND HAVE PERSONALLY SACRIFICED TO DEFEND THAT.
Right. Personally sacrificed. That is to laugh.
And you seem to be lying considering how you want government to stop medical research base upon your religious laws and how you see secular as equal to atheist.
QUOTE
However, ethics and morality are subjective, and are (most commonly even these days) best described by whatever our religious faith is.
For you perhaps, but many do not need a religion to have morals and ethics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| However, ethics and morality are subjective, and are (most commonly even these days) best described by whatever our religious faith is. |
For you perhaps, but many do not need a religion to have morals and ethics.
What we believe. Regardless of the tradition and ceremony..the THOU SHALT NOT...whatever stuff is what I am talking about. It informs our opinions on many issues like Abortion, womens rights, Gay rights, shoot you name it, murder, terrorism...the list is infinite.
And very limited if you are a RC on what your opinions are to be.
QUOTE
ALL of our religions participate INDIRECTLY. Those of us who vote, vote our conscience. We choose what is wrong and right, and we elect people who make choices of that nature for us too, our representative democracy.
Constitutional republic not your mob rule you quoted so often until corrected.
By representing those beliefs (indirectly, and all of the population, and their combined beliefs must be considered) enacting laws and enforcing them based on those beliefs.
Note the added emphasis. I told you that you claimed that laws should be created based upon the consideration of all religions and religious laws. Thank you for admitting it.
And no matter how many of those who vote, no law can violate the constitution which many of your desired ones would.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ALL of our religions participate INDIRECTLY. Those of us who vote, vote our conscience. We choose what is wrong and right, and we elect people who make choices of that nature for us too, our representative democracy. |
Constitutional republic not your mob rule you quoted so often until corrected.
By representing those beliefs (indirectly, and all of the population, and their combined beliefs must be considered) enacting laws and enforcing them based on those beliefs.
Note the added emphasis. I told you that you claimed that laws should be created based upon the consideration of all religions and religious laws. Thank you for admitting it.
And no matter how many of those who vote, no law can violate the constitution which many of your desired ones would.
IN ADDITION, when those beliefs made into laws might improperly trespass on important individual rights and freedoms, we rely on the constitution and our
Supreme Court to strike bad laws down, or modify them
And they have over and over and have removed one religious -based laws after another. And that fact seems to be upsetting to you.
QUOTE
If only to educate others as to your folly.
I’m sure ”others” can research anything that might have a question about. And it is not only myself who has challenged your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If only to educate others as to your folly. |
I’m sure ”others” can research anything that might have a question about. And it is not only myself who has challenged your claims.
I am under no illusions as to the imperviousness of your brilliant imaginings, and how resistant they are to facts, truth, reason or any kind of suasion short of armed conflict possibly.
Wow. More violence in your posts. I’m shocked you simple did not make your “xian majority” veiled threat again.
And if my posts are so full of imagination and lies as you keep parroting over and over, why is it then that you have yet to cite one source to prove me in error?
QUOTE
As I repeatedly say, make an assertion, or attack mine, enough of the childish ranting.
I am not the one who constantly claim that if you leave a faith, then all you were taught about that faith is in error as you have done over and over with me when I have challenged your questionable if not laughable claims.
You do repeat thing over and over, but it is just hollow parroting of that which are you ill equip to back up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I repeatedly say, make an assertion, or attack mine, enough of the childish ranting. |
I am not the one who constantly claim that if you leave a faith, then all you were taught about that faith is in error as you have done over and over with me when I have challenged your questionable if not laughable claims.
You do repeat thing over and over, but it is just hollow parroting of that which are you ill equip to back up.
“snark•y –adjective, snark•i•er, snark•i•est. Chiefly British Slang. testy or irritable; short. “
QUOTE
HAHAHAHAHA
If you think my posts contain any such emotional content, then the fault is yours. But you do tend to see in posts whatever you want to see.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAHAHAHA |
If you think my posts contain any such emotional content, then the fault is yours. But you do tend to see in posts whatever you want to see.
Oh boy. So you, who are demonstrably wrong about almost everything about the catholic church,
And where have you ever proven me wrong about the RC? You keep claiming this but have yet to actually do it.
QUOTE
are more informed than a previously baptist convert,
Yes. You forgot, one who rejected his original faith to spite his parents. And you
also forgot that you lcaim to be a Baptists yet you called yourself a protestant before.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| are more informed than a previously baptist convert, |
Yes. You forgot, one who rejected his original faith to spite his parents. And you
also forgot that you lcaim to be a Baptists yet you called yourself a protestant before.
who went through complete indoctrination and training on every aspect of catholic belief prior to and requisite to accepting and being accepted as a member?
Indoctrination yes, but training? You need to get your donation to he church back
QUOTE
Not exactly.
Oh very much so. Odd how your “training” didn’t include so many fundamental facts about the RCC.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not exactly. |
Oh very much so. Odd how your “training” didn’t include so many fundamental facts about the RCC.
Quote the claims.
Already did. Look up in the posts.
QUOTE
Like I would take advice from you on that.
Considering you are a convert to the faith I rejected, and a questionable convert at that, yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like I would take advice from you on that. |
Considering you are a convert to the faith I rejected, and a questionable convert at that, yes.
Again, stop making up arguments and quandaries, actually post something I SAID
.
Okay, I will post it again for you to ignore.
Why would anyone question such a notion unless they were trying to argue that there was temptation in heaven? (again, rhetorical)
Unless you are arguing just to argue again.
Okay, I will post it again for you to ignore.
QUOTE
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?
Why would anyone question such a notion unless they were trying to argue that there was temptation in heaven? (again, rhetorical)
Unless you are arguing just to argue again.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 02:40 AM)
Where is your source that supports your claim that members of the RC faith do not see god and heaven as facts?
Where is your source that supports your claim that member soft the faith, RC or otherwise, think that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
Again, source for your claims?
Again, source?
HAHAH and here is you doing EXACTLY as I described.
Here is you MAKING A CLAIM FOR ME..and then above you ask for me to back it up...just classic.
QUOTE (Genesplicer+)
Are you trying to claim that ht concept of god or heaven is not seen as factually by theist or RCs? Now that is very odd.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 02:40 AM)
And you continue to misrepresent my posts or fail to simply adhere to the standard protocol of a debate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Now from you that is funny. You wouldn't know "standard protocol" if it bit you in the keyboard.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 02:40 AM)
Again DB, you made the claim that there is temptation in heaven, amongst others, but have yet to provide a source for this rather odd claim.
QUOTE (My ENTIRE in context original post where you got this "claim"+)
QUOTE (deadbeat)
Who says there is no temptation in Heaven? I am not aware of that argument. How could we know what heaven would even be like, or even what WE would be like in Heaven? How could we be as we are, and withstand the immediate presence of God, without also being granted a higher consciousness and appreciation? Just my thoughts. I think we would be in an entirely different and more comprehensive state of awareness, so that temptation is pointless. The correct decision would be instantly and completely known, why would we choose wrongly?
I was actually responding to someone else asserting there is no temptation, by saying I do not know if there is, but IN MY OPINION it is irrelevant. So you cherry-pick something ridiculous, and then ask me to "provide a source for this claim".
So, to put it simply for someone obviously needing extreme simplicity, the source is ME, because "I think".
and the funnier part is, I actually SOURCED in an earlier post that agrees with what I said exactly.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 16 2008, 07:59 AM)
Here is a source for a catholic take on Heaven,
QUOTE (Leonard Foley O.F.M.+)
Heaven is being with God forever, face-to-face. We can only say, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it so much as dawned on man what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). If God has created earthly ecstasies, what must his greatest creation—heaven—be! On the other hand, hell is the condition of those who choose spiritual death with complete awareness and freedom, and remain in the attitude as they die. Finally, Catholics believe that those who die in God's grace but with some lingering self-centeredness will be purified before they will see God face-to-face.
What catholics believe
I will not bother to even read the rest of this extraneous outraged blathering.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 17 2008, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE (deadbeat @ Jun 17 2008+ 03:05 AM)
Hard scientific fact? You find it odd? That is strange, you see when your straw men are examined, nothing but fluff and silliness remain. religion is based on BELIEF AND FAITH, not scientific fact. Some certainly do think so, but they are not me, nor do they represent MY church.
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church. The Catholic church defines itself. So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes. Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
Christianity - Afterlife and Eschaton
Heaven - In Roman Catholicism
Hell in Christian Beliefs - Roman Catholicism
Ahem...
So rather than post your source for your claims you again post more intellectually dishonest claims.
Where is your source that backs up your claim that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
So rather than post your source for your claims you again post more intellectually dishonest claims.
Where is your source that backs up your claim that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Laugh all you like and by all means keep avoiding actually backing up your claims.
So more personal insults rather than a source for your claims.
Again DB, you have to be reminded constantly of how debates function. You cannot make any hollow claim you like and demand to be proven wrong.
And in providing that support, posting insults about those you have a personal problem with or cannot debate rationally and with reason only go to illustrate just how lacking you are in such support.
So more personal insults rather than a source for your claims.
Again DB, you have to be reminded constantly of how debates function. You cannot make any hollow claim you like and demand to be proven wrong.
And in providing that support, posting insults about those you have a personal problem with or cannot debate rationally and with reason only go to illustrate just how lacking you are in such support.
I was actually responding to someone else asserting there is no temptation, by saying I do not know if there is, but IN MY OPINION it is irrelevant. So you cherry-pick something ridiculous, and then ask me to "provide a source for this claim".
Not at all. You state clearly “Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?”
If all you have is you hollow opinion, then simply say so, but do not argue silly claims such as this just for the sake of it as you have admitted to doing in the past.
You are not a legitimate course since you lack even the basic understanding of the RC faith and the RCC.
You can claim to be anything you like, but you keep making claims about the RC and the RCC that simply are ones of fantasy, ignorance or both.
You are not a legitimate course since you lack even the basic understanding of the RC faith and the RCC.
You can claim to be anything you like, but you keep making claims about the RC and the RCC that simply are ones of fantasy, ignorance or both.
and the funnier part is, I actually SOURCED in an earlier post that agrees with what I said exactly.
And again, that claim is simply a lie. Where does this quote state that there will be temptation in heaven?
In other words, you cannot face or with reason and rational thought debate me or how I point out your irrational claims as illogical notions.
Notion like the fact that everything I was taught about the RC faith is somehow no longer correct since I no longer believe.
Or how about the fact that you simply seem to hate me since I rejected what you adopted later in life.
Or the claim that you have proven my knowledge of the RC faith lacking but somehow just cannot find any example of such on this forum.
By all means DB, use whatever backpedal or cop-out you think you need to.
When you can actually back up your claims with something other than your hollow opinion, please try to enter into the debate again.
And if you need to be reminded of how a debate functions, I’m sure many here will explain it to you again.
So rather than post your source for your claims you again post more intellectually dishonest claims.
Where is your source that backs up your claim that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
Hehe, oh I will keep laughing. At what you seem to believe passes for intelligent debate.
Laugh all you like and by all means keep avoiding actually backing up your claims.
Ahem...hahahah...your claim you mean.
So more personal insults rather than a source for your claims.
Again DB, you have to be reminded constantly of how debates function. You cannot make any hollow claim you like and demand to be proven wrong.
HAHAHA and as usual, you accuse ME of doing what you are in flagrante delicto.
And in providing that support, posting insults about those you have a personal problem with or cannot debate rationally and with reason only go to illustrate just how lacking you are in such support.
If it were possible to HAVE a reasonable discussion with poor deluded you, I would do so.
Not at all. You state clearly “Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?”
HAHAHA when read in context, it was in argument of his rationalization. It literally means I am asking HIM to support that statement (who says). Your hubris knows no practical limitation.
If all you have is you hollow opinion, then simply say so, but do not argue silly claims such as this just for the sake of it as you have admitted to doing in the past.
You are not a legitimate course since you lack even the basic understanding of the RC faith and the RCC.
Wow, funny, since I am a practicing member in good standing, and you are just a deluded crank with no support but your own fevered imaginings. (oh and occasional Wiki quotes, that was funny. Strange you cannot find a CATHOLIC source to support your endless allegations? Since supposedly it is what CATHOLICS believe?)
You can claim to be anything you like, but you keep making claims about the RC and the RCC that simply are ones of fantasy, ignorance or both.
And again, that claim is simply a lie. Where does this quote state that there will be temptation in heaven?
It doesn't oh clueless one. That was YOUR claim, not mine. The entire original argument I was refuting was based on that statement, I did not make it or CLAIM it, I questioned it. Pointless telling you that, you will just keep repeating your endless mantra.
In other words, you cannot face or with reason and rational thought debate me or how I point out your irrational claims as illogical notions.
Would be embarrassing if it were true, but since it is YOU making claims for me, it is just funny.
Notion like the fact that everything I was taught about the RC faith is somehow no longer correct since I no longer believe.
Dude, it most likely has never has been correct in your lifetime. Why would we break a perfect record.
Or how about the fact that you simply seem to hate me since I rejected what you adopted later in life.
No I just pity you. I would not waste hate on something so trivial.
Or the claim that you have proven my knowledge of the RC faith lacking but somehow just cannot find any example of such on this forum.
By all means DB, use whatever backpedal or cop-out you think you need to.
When you can actually back up your claims with something other than your hollow opinion, please try to enter into the debate again.
And if you need to be reminded of how a debate functions, I’m sure many here will explain it to you again.
And here again, your utterly misinformed and twisted version of what you THINK the Catholic church is, does not DEFINE the Catholic church. The Catholic church defines itself. So once again, instead of wildly inaccurate misrepresentations, and fluttering imaginings of what YOU think the catholic church is, lets instead focus on what the Catholic church REALLY is and believes. Once again, once your invented claims are revealed for the sham that they are, your arguments dissipate to nothing but ranting.
Christianity - Afterlife and Eschaton
Heaven - In Roman Catholicism
Hell in Christian Beliefs - Roman Catholicism
Ahem...
QUOTE
HAHAH and here is you doing EXACTLY as I described.
Here is you MAKING A CLAIM FOR ME..and then above you ask for me to back it up...just classic.
Here is you MAKING A CLAIM FOR ME..and then above you ask for me to back it up...just classic.
So rather than post your source for your claims you again post more intellectually dishonest claims.
Where is your source that backs up your claim that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAH and here is you doing EXACTLY as I described. Here is you MAKING A CLAIM FOR ME..and then above you ask for me to back it up...just classic. |
So rather than post your source for your claims you again post more intellectually dishonest claims.
Where is your source that backs up your claim that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Laugh all you like and by all means keep avoiding actually backing up your claims.
QUOTE
Now from you that is funny. You wouldn't know "standard protocol" if it bit you in the keyboard.
So more personal insults rather than a source for your claims.
Again DB, you have to be reminded constantly of how debates function. You cannot make any hollow claim you like and demand to be proven wrong.
And in providing that support, posting insults about those you have a personal problem with or cannot debate rationally and with reason only go to illustrate just how lacking you are in such support.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now from you that is funny. You wouldn't know "standard protocol" if it bit you in the keyboard. |
So more personal insults rather than a source for your claims.
Again DB, you have to be reminded constantly of how debates function. You cannot make any hollow claim you like and demand to be proven wrong.
And in providing that support, posting insults about those you have a personal problem with or cannot debate rationally and with reason only go to illustrate just how lacking you are in such support.
I was actually responding to someone else asserting there is no temptation, by saying I do not know if there is, but IN MY OPINION it is irrelevant. So you cherry-pick something ridiculous, and then ask me to "provide a source for this claim".
Not at all. You state clearly “Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?”
If all you have is you hollow opinion, then simply say so, but do not argue silly claims such as this just for the sake of it as you have admitted to doing in the past.
QUOTE
So, to put it simply for someone obviously needing extreme simplicity, the source is ME, because "I think".
You are not a legitimate course since you lack even the basic understanding of the RC faith and the RCC.
You can claim to be anything you like, but you keep making claims about the RC and the RCC that simply are ones of fantasy, ignorance or both.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, to put it simply for someone obviously needing extreme simplicity, the source is ME, because "I think". |
You are not a legitimate course since you lack even the basic understanding of the RC faith and the RCC.
You can claim to be anything you like, but you keep making claims about the RC and the RCC that simply are ones of fantasy, ignorance or both.
and the funnier part is, I actually SOURCED in an earlier post that agrees with what I said exactly.
And again, that claim is simply a lie. Where does this quote state that there will be temptation in heaven?
QUOTE
I will not bother to even read the rest of this extraneous outraged blathering.
In other words, you cannot face or with reason and rational thought debate me or how I point out your irrational claims as illogical notions.
Notion like the fact that everything I was taught about the RC faith is somehow no longer correct since I no longer believe.
Or how about the fact that you simply seem to hate me since I rejected what you adopted later in life.
Or the claim that you have proven my knowledge of the RC faith lacking but somehow just cannot find any example of such on this forum.
By all means DB, use whatever backpedal or cop-out you think you need to.
When you can actually back up your claims with something other than your hollow opinion, please try to enter into the debate again.
And if you need to be reminded of how a debate functions, I’m sure many here will explain it to you again.
QUOTE (Leonard Foley as provided by deadbeat+)
Heaven is being with God forever, face-to-face. We can only say, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has it so much as dawned on man what God has prepared for those who love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9).
deadbeat: I've avoided this thread due to my very hectic schedule, but I'll quickly pop in to say the following...
For starters, Leonard Foley has absolutely no idea whatsoever what he is talking about, scripturally speaking. It's no wonder that you're as equally confused, when you have such Biblical teachers. Let's examine the partial quote that he gave in context, shall we? I apologize for the lengthy scriptural citation that is about to follow, but I saw no way of avoiding it while still being able to make some points.
"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."(I Corinthians 2:1-14)
The portion of scripture that Leonard Foley cited about how "Eye hath not seen, ear hast not heard" had/has to do with those who do NOT know Christ(which is why, sad to say, it apparently applies to both of you), not with those who actually do know Him. Paul was stating how, due to their lack of love for Christ, such individuals are basically "in the dark" regarding eternal life/matters. Paul continued by saying "BUT God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit", which clearly indicates that those who genuinely love God and are born of His Spirit will be given insight into eternal life/matters. Additionally, although this portion of scripture doesn't specifically state it(others do), Paul was NOT speaking about life in heaven, but, rather, life here on earth when the kingdom of God is established HERE at Christ's return. Heaven, Biblically speaking, is NOT the final destination for Christians. Those who die in Christ will go to heaven temporarily, but they will return HERE TO EARTH with Christ at His return. THIS is what the scriptures clearly teach, although multitudes of professing Christians believe otherwise without scriptural support for such beliefs. You, of all people, being a Catholic who presumably recites the "Our Father", should be aware of this:
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."(Matthew 6:9-10)
Biblically speaking, God's kingdom is COMING...Christians aren't GOING to it in heaven, per se. Heaven is but an intermediary place until the kingdom of God is established right here on earth. Well, that's my two cents for now. I'm leaving on a much needed vacation with my family early tomorrow morning...I'm not sure if I'll be posting for the next week and a half or so or not, but I wanted to at least get the ball rolling in the right direction. Take care.
deadbeat: I've avoided this thread due to my very hectic schedule, but I'll quickly pop in to say the following...
For starters, Leonard Foley has absolutely no idea whatsoever what he is talking about, scripturally speaking. It's no wonder that you're as equally confused, when you have such Biblical teachers. Let's examine the partial quote that he gave in context, shall we? I apologize for the lengthy scriptural citation that is about to follow, but I saw no way of avoiding it while still being able to make some points.
"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we also speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."(I Corinthians 2:1-14)
The portion of scripture that Leonard Foley cited about how "Eye hath not seen, ear hast not heard" had/has to do with those who do NOT know Christ(which is why, sad to say, it apparently applies to both of you), not with those who actually do know Him. Paul was stating how, due to their lack of love for Christ, such individuals are basically "in the dark" regarding eternal life/matters. Paul continued by saying "BUT God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit", which clearly indicates that those who genuinely love God and are born of His Spirit will be given insight into eternal life/matters. Additionally, although this portion of scripture doesn't specifically state it(others do), Paul was NOT speaking about life in heaven, but, rather, life here on earth when the kingdom of God is established HERE at Christ's return. Heaven, Biblically speaking, is NOT the final destination for Christians. Those who die in Christ will go to heaven temporarily, but they will return HERE TO EARTH with Christ at His return. THIS is what the scriptures clearly teach, although multitudes of professing Christians believe otherwise without scriptural support for such beliefs. You, of all people, being a Catholic who presumably recites the "Our Father", should be aware of this:
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."(Matthew 6:9-10)
Biblically speaking, God's kingdom is COMING...Christians aren't GOING to it in heaven, per se. Heaven is but an intermediary place until the kingdom of God is established right here on earth. Well, that's my two cents for now. I'm leaving on a much needed vacation with my family early tomorrow morning...I'm not sure if I'll be posting for the next week and a half or so or not, but I wanted to at least get the ball rolling in the right direction. Take care.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
So rather than post your source for your claims you again post more intellectually dishonest claims.
Where is your source that backs up your claim that there is and will be temptation in heaven?
Hehe, oh I will keep laughing. At what you seem to believe passes for intelligent debate.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
Laugh all you like and by all means keep avoiding actually backing up your claims.
Ahem...hahahah...your claim you mean.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
So more personal insults rather than a source for your claims.
Again DB, you have to be reminded constantly of how debates function. You cannot make any hollow claim you like and demand to be proven wrong.
HAHAHA and as usual, you accuse ME of doing what you are in flagrante delicto.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
And in providing that support, posting insults about those you have a personal problem with or cannot debate rationally and with reason only go to illustrate just how lacking you are in such support.
If it were possible to HAVE a reasonable discussion with poor deluded you, I would do so.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
Not at all. You state clearly “Who says there is no temptation in Heaven?”
HAHAHA when read in context, it was in argument of his rationalization. It literally means I am asking HIM to support that statement (who says). Your hubris knows no practical limitation.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
If all you have is you hollow opinion, then simply say so, but do not argue silly claims such as this just for the sake of it as you have admitted to doing in the past.
You are not a legitimate course since you lack even the basic understanding of the RC faith and the RCC.
Wow, funny, since I am a practicing member in good standing, and you are just a deluded crank with no support but your own fevered imaginings. (oh and occasional Wiki quotes, that was funny. Strange you cannot find a CATHOLIC source to support your endless allegations? Since supposedly it is what CATHOLICS believe?)
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
You can claim to be anything you like, but you keep making claims about the RC and the RCC that simply are ones of fantasy, ignorance or both.
And again, that claim is simply a lie. Where does this quote state that there will be temptation in heaven?
It doesn't oh clueless one. That was YOUR claim, not mine. The entire original argument I was refuting was based on that statement, I did not make it or CLAIM it, I questioned it. Pointless telling you that, you will just keep repeating your endless mantra.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
In other words, you cannot face or with reason and rational thought debate me or how I point out your irrational claims as illogical notions.
Would be embarrassing if it were true, but since it is YOU making claims for me, it is just funny.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
Notion like the fact that everything I was taught about the RC faith is somehow no longer correct since I no longer believe.
Dude, it most likely has never has been correct in your lifetime. Why would we break a perfect record.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
Or how about the fact that you simply seem to hate me since I rejected what you adopted later in life.
No I just pity you. I would not waste hate on something so trivial.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Jun 18 2008, 09:35 PM)
Or the claim that you have proven my knowledge of the RC faith lacking but somehow just cannot find any example of such on this forum.
By all means DB, use whatever backpedal or cop-out you think you need to.
When you can actually back up your claims with something other than your hollow opinion, please try to enter into the debate again.
And if you need to be reminded of how a debate functions, I’m sure many here will explain it to you again.