Adam and Eve

[ddarko]

If Adam and Eve had no inclination to sin, they wouldn’t have. He was not created perfect or with an immortal soul as Catholic doctrine also falsely teaches. He was created to fall.

What are you? A Calvinist? That is blasphemy. You are saying God created Adam to fall?

Look whose assigning Evil to God.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I accept the canon for the same reason they did - because of the evidence. .

Evidence from WHAT? Tradition?

Then you must know that Tradition holds Original Sin. So once again you Loose. I really don’t see whats blinding you here.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

Alright, lets not waste each others valuable time. Let me show you somethings that makes your arguments look childish at best.

I highly doubt it.

Maybe you truly don’t. BUT. the irony here is that you are willing to accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Canon of Scripture. How does that work?

I accept the canon for the same reason the early church did, which I already pointed out: the evidence.

As I said to you again. There is no dilemma. The Catholic Church accepts and in facts STATES that Christ atoned for EVERYONE!

I’ve explained it to you several times. You simply fail to comprehend what I am saying.

You are the person who is unable to understand that. So you keep crying “dilemma”. Now not to be rude, but it looks like you cannot comprehend that there is actually NO dilemma. You are assigning an incorrect position to the Roman Catholic Church which she does not ever take.

God Bless

I quoted directly out of the CCC. Which part of that is incorrect? The Catholic church teaches that the punishment for Adam’s sin is visited on all of humanity. God says in several places he does not do this. The obvious answer is that the Catholic understanding of what Paul is saying with regard to Adam’s sin is wrong.

 

[ckempston]

Evidence from WHAT? Tradition?

Then you must know that Tradition holds Original Sin. So once again you Loose. I really don’t see whats blinding you here.

God Bless

How many non sequiturs can you possibly commit in a single discussion? The Catholic church treats the early church fathers like a salad bar, and they were known, as Calvin said, to disagree with themselves as often as each other. So, not only non sequitur, but special pleading and cherry picking.

 

[ckempston]

What are you? A Calvinist? That is blasphemy. You are saying God created Adam to fall?

Look whose assigning Evil to God.

God Bless

Not really, I have some substantive disagreements with Calvinists. It’s certainly not blasphemy. Yes, man was created to fall. God intended everything that happened to happen. This is why the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Fortunately, I don’t get to define what evil is, God does. And he says that punishing someone other than the sinner is something he would never do. You’re saying he does.

 

[ckempston]

No…

That is exactly what you’re saying. When I was born, I had not sinned personally. I was in a state of Grace, as are all children, until I sinned personally. Adam’s sin may have made it more likely that I would sin, but it did not make me guilty, or separate me from God (until I had sinned personally). Catholic teaching says the exact opposite of Ezekiel 18:20.

 

[StTommyMore]

That is exactly what you’re saying. When I was born, I had not sinned personally. I was in a state of Grace, as are all children, until I sinned personally. Adam’s sin may have made it more likely that I would sin, but it did not make me guilty, or separate me from God (until I had sinned personally). Catholic teaching says the exact opposite of Ezekiel 18:20.

You have yet to demonstrate that you have even a modicum of understanding of what the Church teaches, or even an understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, specifically, the nature and orientation of creation.

 

[ckempston]

You have yet to demonstrate that you have even a modicum of understanding of what the Church teaches, or even an understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, specifically, the nature and orientation of creation.

The least you could do is accompany your empty rhetoric with something resembling an argument.

 

[ddarko]

I highly doubt it.

Well, you seem to be doubting a lot of true things. So… not very surprising

I quoted directly out of the CCC. Which part of that is incorrect? The Catholic church teaches that the punishment for Adam’s sin is visited on all of humanity. God says in several places he does not do this. The obvious answer is that the Catholic understanding of what Paul is saying with regard to Adam’s sin is wrong.

The part that is incorrect is that you assert that the church states that Christ died for a limited crowd. That is FALSE.

As for God not punishing humanity, you can clearly see that there are passages to the contrary as well. That is why I said this is like the faith vs. works conundrum which you once again misunderstood due to some mental snipping.

Your interpretation is invalid since Tradition opposes it. Get it? Tradition gives us the Canon. If you deny Tradition. you are the typical type of person atheist go after when they say, “those idiots who believe on the Bible alone”.

So in very short, if you accept Tradition, you have no choice but to accept Original Sin.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

How many non sequiturs can you possibly commit in a single discussion? The Catholic church treats the early church fathers like a salad bar, and they were known, as Calvin said, to disagree with themselves as often as each other. So, not only non sequitur, but special pleading and cherry picking.

What???

Ok lets me get this STRAIGHT.

1. How do you know the canon of Scripture?
2. What is this illusive evidence you keep referring to for the Canon? Is it Tradition?
3. Do you deny Tradition?
4. If you deny Tradition, then HOW ON EARTH do you even KNOW that there is such a thing as Scripture, Christ, etc?
5. About the Salad bar, I can think of no one else who is eating out of a salad bar other than you in this case. You are choosing to accept the Catholic Church on its teaching of Canon while you want to go against them in when it comes to Original Sin. You must be quiet the eater.

Now answer the questions above directly. Those are questions. The only thing you seem to know is to cry “non sequitor”. You seem to have no clue of the logical fallacies you are committing with your position.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

Well, you seem to be doubting a lot of true things. So… not very surprising

The part that is incorrect is that you assert that the church states that Christ died for a limited crowd. That is FALSE.

I never said that and don’t believe it. Christ died for all; however, his sacrifice is only effective for those who accept him. In the same way, Adam brought death, and it is only those who choose to sin that fall from Grace. The fact that this just happens to be everybody who reaches the age of accountability is not lost on me; however, Original Sin does not follow from this.

As for God not punishing humanity, you can clearly see that there are passages to the contrary as well. That is why I said this is like the faith vs. works conundrum which you once again misunderstood due to some mental snipping.

Such as?

Your interpretation is invalid since Tradition opposes it. Get it? Tradition gives us the Canon. If you deny Tradition. you are the typical type of person atheist go after when they say, “those idiots who believe on the Bible alone”.

I’m sorry, are you calling me an idiot? You are at least implying it. While we’ve bantered back and forth, I believe this is a clear violation of forum rules.

So in very short, if you accept Tradition, you have no choice but to accept Original Sin.

God Bless

Non sequitur. You might want to look this up.

 

[ddarko]

Not really, I have some substantive disagreements with Calvinists. It’s certainly not blasphemy. Yes, man was created to fall. God intended everything that happened to happen. This is why the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Fortunately, I don’t get to define what evil is, God does. And he says that punishing someone other than the sinner is something he would never do. You’re saying he does.

You are such a joke my friend. Under your view, if YOU got to HELL, then it is God that damned you.

So yes, now to get out this new dilemma, you have to believe that everyone is sanctified from birth and whole lot of other positions. No wonder you are so hardcore about trying to believe your position.

But hey, you are going about this the wrong manner. First get your BASIS right. That will tell you what you can accept and cannot accept. Right now, you don’t even have a good reason as to why you believe in Scripture or it’s canon. So in reality, you have no consistent basis for accepting or denying truths. That is why it’s so easy for me to see from the outside that you are picking and choosing while for you, it probably mentally feels like you are very consistent.

Whats more, you seem to be hellbent on proving you are right over a 2000 year old church which consists of great theological and philosophical teachers who you surely can’t even seem to hold a candle to. Pride is a big sin… or is that not the case in your interpretation

Seriously friend, only you can help yourself here I am afraid.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

What???

Ok lets me get this STRAIGHT.

1. How do you know the canon of Scripture?

The same way the early church knew it. They didn’t draw straws or have some miracle to confirm the canon, they looked at the evidence. What’s so hard to understand about this? I accept the Jewish scriptures too, but that doesn’t mean I accept their authority to interpret them. Non sequitur, again.

1. What is this illusive evidence you keep referring to for the Canon? Is it Tradition?

You mean “elusive?” No, it’s not Tradition, it’s history.

1. Do you deny Tradition?

I deny that Tradition has authority to change or supercede Scripture. It’s certainly useful for understanding what Christians believed throughout history.

1. If you deny Tradition, then HOW ON EARTH do you even KNOW that there is such a thing as Scripture, Christ, etc?

Because it wasn’t “Tradition” that determined the canon, but evidence.

1. About the Salad bar, I can think of no one else who is eating out of a salad bar other than you in this case. You are choosing to accept the Catholic Church on its teaching of Canon while you want to go against them in when it comes to Original Sin. You must be quiet the eater.

No, I accept that the methods the “Catholic church” used to determine the Canon were reasonable and rational.

Now answer the questions above directly. Those are questions. The only thing you seem to know is to cry “non sequitor”. You seem to have no clue of the logical fallacies you are committing with your position.

God Bless

Please, you can’t even spell non sequitur.

 

[ddarko]

I never said that and don’t believe it. Christ died for all; however, his sacrifice is only effective for those who accept him. In the same way, Adam brought death, and it is only those who choose to sin that fall from Grace. The fact that this just happens to be everybody who reaches the age of accountability is not lost on me; however, Original Sin does not follow from this.

If Christ did atone for everyone, what on earth did he atone for?

Such as?

I already mentioned those before. Then you tried to fit them in to your nice little wishful thinking interpretation… remember?

I
I’m sorry, are you calling me an idiot? You are at least implying it. While we’ve bantered back and forth, I believe this is a clear violation of forum rules.

I donno. You tell me. Are you a faith only person? Then please, by all means, where you hat. I simply pointed out a description of a certain group of people who are logically inconsistent and therefore come across as idiots. I never said you. But if it fits the bill, I am sorry.

Non sequitur. You might want to look this up.

Yea, I forgot that different people need more explanations to see how things logically follow. It was certainly my fault .

If you accept the Scripture Canon from Tradition, and you say you can throw away the rest, you have a epistemological problem here. On the one hand you want to accept Tradition’s Canon as inerrant but you want to deny the rest as errant. How did you make this enlightened judgment O’ Great one ?

 

[ckempston]

You are such a joke my friend. Under your view, if YOU got to HELL, then it is God that damned you.

Another non sequitur. Again, I suggest you look this up.

So yes, now to get out this new dilemma, you have to believe that everyone is sanctified from birth and whole lot of other positions. No wonder you are so hardcore about trying to believe your position.

You don’t even know the definition of sanctified if you think infants are sanctified from birth. Being born in a state of Grace, having never sinned, is different from sanctification, which is a process of being made holy.

But hey, you are going about this the wrong manner. First get your BASIS right. That will tell you what you can accept and cannot accept. Right now, you don’t even have a good reason as to why you believe in Scripture or it’s canon. So in reality, you have no consistent basis for accepting or denying truths. That is why it’s so easy for me to see from the outside that you are picking and choosing while for you, it probably mentally feels like you are very consistent.

I’ve given the reason why, you just keep repeating yourself that I haven’t.

Whats more, you seem to be hellbent on proving you are right over a 2000 year old church which consists of great theological and philosophical teachers who you surely can’t even seem to hold a candle to. Pride is a big sin… or is that not the case in your interpretation

I already told you age does not equate to truth. I clearly refuted this by pointing out that Judaism is older than Christianity. By your reasoning, you should be Jewish.

Seriously friend, only you can help yourself here I am afraid.

God Bless

It is certainly true that you cannot “help me,” if by help you mean provide a rational defense of original sin.

 

[ddarko]

The same way the early church knew it. They didn’t draw straws or have some miracle to confirm the canon, they looked at the evidence. What’s so hard to understand about this? I accept the Jewish scriptures too, but that doesn’t mean I accept their authority to interpret them. Non sequitur, again.

Haha. So you accept Jewish scripture eh? Is it because they told you they are Jewish Scripture ?

Like seriously, what is wrong with you? You can’t seem to see to understand that you have no basis.

I
You mean “elusive?” No, it’s not Tradition, it’s history.

Oh wow. History eh?

Please enlighten us. How do you know historically that the Canon of the Scripture is so and so? How do you know to trust it? After all, you are believing someone with authority

I
I deny that Tradition has authority to change or supercede Scripture. It’s certainly useful for understanding what Christians believed throughout history.

Yea, great logic there. You want to say that Scripture has more authority OVER what pronounced as to what Scripture is in the first place. You are certainly great at this

I
Because it wasn’t “Tradition” that determined the canon, but evidence.

Once again, what evidence? IF you mean history, are you talking about Oral Tradition here in other words? Or are you saying Historians? B/c if you mean historians, how do you know you can trust them? Because right now you seem to be under this anti authoritarian view point so I am certainly interested to know your epistemology.

I
No, I accept that the methods the “Catholic church” used to determine the Canon were reasonable and rational.

Yeah, true salad bar style. They were all rational when they gave you what you want. But then they started falling off the wagon right

I
Please, you can’t even spell non sequitur.

Yea, it shows how much I use it. I am a fan of pointing out logical fallacies. Usually that involves understanding the other persons arguments which in your case, you clearly lack. To think that something doesn’t follow, you first got to know why the other person is saying it. In your case, you really don’t even seem to care. So you keep using the same ‘intelligent’ words

God Bless

 

[StTommyMore]

I already told you age does not equate to truth. I clearly refuted this by pointing out that Judaism is older than Christianity. By your reasoning, you should be Jewish.

Considering that Jesus is a Jew, and His Kingdom is the Davidic Kingdom, and the Church is the temporal manifestation of that kingdom, then it could be said that Catholicism is the the fullest representation of Judaism. The Church is what the previous covenants were preparing us for. So yes, I think it could be argued that Catholics are spiritual Jews.

 

[ddarko]

Another non sequitur. Again, I suggest you look this up.

You don’t even know the definition of sanctified if you think infants are sanctified from birth. Being born in a state of Grace, having never sinned, is different from sanctification, which is a process of being made holy.

I’ve given the reason why, you just keep repeating yourself that I haven’t.

I already told you age does not equate to truth. I clearly refuted this by pointing out that Judaism is older than Christianity. By your reasoning, you should be Jewish.

It is certainly true that you cannot “help me,” if by help you mean provide a rational defense of original sin.

I give up. You are too smart for me.

I am just a fool who follows the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church. You seem to know better than all of them. Our rational arguments for original sin are soooo non sequitur you know. We can’t even form a deductive argument properly. I wonder how we got anything right.

We just got the Canon of Scripture right by some fluke. That’s all we got right apparently according to you.

So good luck with your enlightened view! I for one am too dumb to even comprehend it and I’d rather stay that way if you don’t mind.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

If Christ did atone for everyone, what on earth did he atone for?

Reading comprehension fail. I agreed with you. Go back and read my post over.

I already mentioned those before. Then you tried to fit them in to your nice little wishful thinking interpretation… remember?

No, I tried to reconcile them with explicit statements that God does not punish anyone but the soul who sins.

I donno. You tell me. Are you a faith only person? Then please, by all means, where you hat. I simply pointed out a description of a certain group of people who are logically inconsistent and therefore come across as idiots. I never said you. But if it fits the bill, I am sorry.

So you’re calling faith only people idiots? No, I’m not, but this is a clear violation of forum rules. You can feel free to apologize if you feel so moved.

Yea, I forgot that different people need more explanations to see how things logically follow. It was certainly my fault .

Your conclusions do not follow the premises you’ve given. No amount of explanation will change that.

If you accept the Scripture Canon from Tradition, and you say you can throw away the rest, you have a epistemological problem here. On the one hand you want to accept Tradition’s Canon as inerrant but you want to deny the rest as errant. How did you make this enlightened judgment O’ Great one ?

Everybody has an epistemological problem. This is a problem common to man, and all religions. At some point, all arguments are based on unproven assumptions or circular reasoning. I’m more than willing to admit that. Roman Catholics believe the RCC to be the one true church. Why do they believe that? Because the Roman Catholic church says it.

I’ve already explained to you that I accept the canon for the same reason the early church did. They looked at the evidence, which included personal testimony, physical evidence, written records, and oral tradition. They made inferences based on this evidence and came to the most reasonable conclusion that they could. You act like it was magic or something.

 

[ckempston]

I give up. You are too smart for me.

I am just a fool who follows the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church. You seem to know better than all of them. Our rational arguments for original sin are soooo non sequitur you know. We can’t even form a deductive argument properly. I wonder how we got anything right.

We just got the Canon of Scripture right by some fluke. That’s all we got right apparently according to you.

So good luck with your enlightened view! I for one am too dumb to even comprehend it and I’d rather stay that way if you don’t mind.

God Bless

No, that’s not all the Catholic church got right, but if you feel like you need to end the discussion that’s your prerogative.