I’m being told to log out pronto to go worship at the mall, but that was me paraphrasing from the online copy of a book by a 17th C guy named Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure, not ricmat’s other suggestion - Ralph Martin’s book isn’t online so he may be as pure as the driven snow for all I know.
Inocente,with respect to the sufferings of the people in Joplin, Missouri, it seems there may be four possibilities:
Is it the feast day of Saint Consumer?
My bad. The book is available online from many Catholic sites, and I just picked the first one that popped up on google.From the home page of that site:
Unfortunately the nations of the world do not recognize this and accept the heretic Joseph Ratzinger as head of the Vatican City State. - vaticaninexile.com/Home.html
Uh, someone robbing you is a bit different than your parapharase.Moreover, when God cooperates with the person who attacks or robs you, He doubtless intends to deprive you of health or goods because you are making a wrong use of them and they will be harmful to your soul. But He does not intend that the attacker or robber should take them from you by a sin. That is the part of human malice, not God’s design.
To paraphrase:
Moreover, when God cooperated with the Nazis to murder millions of Jews, He doubtless intended to deprive the Jews of life because they were making a wrong use of it and it was harmful to their souls. But He did not intend that the Nazis should take life by a sin. That is the part of human malice, not God’s design.
Depraved nonsense.
You have no doubt grown up in a world in which you have expectations of never having to suffer, or have your self esteem diminished rather than enhanced. You deserve it. Those who love me give me what I want, with no suffering. The purpose of life is to avoid suffering…etc. Talk to Rossum, that’s the Buddhist way of thinking.Some more:
*We ought to conform to God’s will in all public calamities such as war, famine and pestilence, and reverence and adore His judgments with deep humility in the firm belief that, however severe they may seem, the God of infinite goodness would not send such disasters unless some great good were to result from them.
Consider how many souls may be saved through tribulation which would otherwise be lost, how many persons through affliction are converted to God and die with sincere repentance for their sins. What may appear a scourge and punishment is often a sign of great grace and mercy.*
At that point I gave up.
The quote you’re using to defame Ralph Martin was from Innocente, not Ralph Martin.
What’s the relevant quotation from Martin?
There is no relevant quote from Martin. Look at your post 257.
I followed the link. Weird stuff.
The quotation appears to be from some guy named Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure.
You are very confused.
It’s a good idea to click the links in the “preview post” window to test them, but having said that I’ll probably forget on the very next link.
Not invented, just substituted a real case into the logic. It’s a perfectly legitimate test which that piece of logic failed.
That’s a very clear explanation, with an authentic quotation from Saint-Jure whatever the discussion since.
Yes, and it comes once a week, which for males is well over the top.
It’s a good idea to click the links in the “preview post” window to test them, but having said that I’ll probably forget on the very next link.
Not invented, just substituted a real case into the logic. It’s a perfectly legitimate test which that piece of logic failed.
The Nazis didn’t rob and attack the Jews? StAnastasia completely dissected that way of thinking in post #260.
That’s a strange thing to say when you don’t know anything about my life. Saint-Jure is all about selfish belief-in-belief and nothing about humility. But I do agree that Buddhism is a fine system of belief, and like you wish more folk would read Job – never noticed anyone else quote him except us two, one of the most profound books in the OT seems to go roundly ignored.
On this we agree. Ignore what went before and see if we can agree on something else. I said earlier that before water baptism Baptists are asked “do you accept Christ as your personal Savior”. That’s because the more important baptism is in the Spirit, the point when folk realize the spirit of Christ is within them and will never leave them. Set besides that very personal event, all philosophizing about God is straw. Paul says as much - Where is the philosopher of this age? … Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified … God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” – 1 Cor 18:20-31
)[/QUOTE]
We’re mightily agreed.
As in: putting down science makes some Christians feel better about themselves on Sundays, but they still use their computers and take their antibiotics the rest of the week. :whacky:
Matthew 7.Again, before water baptism the only Baptist question asked is "do you accept Christ as your personal
Savior", not “do you deny reality, logic and evidence, and accept all this baggage of whatever anyone on CAF says is doctrine and wants to load on your shoulders or else you’re going straight to Hell, oh yes you are, mark my words you horrid little toenail, etc. etc. etc.”.
Good point. I sometimes get in a hurry and forget. Thanks for reminding me.
If you read the entire book (parts 1 and 2 by the 2 different authors), then you would have at least some authority to claim that your paraphrase is accurate. (But even then, it doesn’t give you infallibility in terms of an accurate paraphrase). Read the whole thing, then it would be worth debating with you. Instead of a phrase taken out of context.
I don’t see anywhere in Job that “God doesn’t interfere with mankind or cause suffering therefore it must be a side effect of unguided purposeless evolution.” If anything, the message is that He does cause suffering (or at a minimum, allows it).
That would be true for a narrative but he’s making attempts at philosophical, logical explanations which he himself divides into small sections. I’d agree about the sin of quoting out of context but I followed his drift and substituting real examples is a good way to see if an explanation works. It doesn’t, if only he’d taken a leaf from Thomas Aquinas by thinking critically about objections to his own logic he wouldn’t have fallen into as many traps.