S
seeker777
Guest
Rhetorical question.
- Status
S
seeker777
Guest
duplicate
T
The_Catholic
Guest
You got to be kidding me? What a mockery of a question. I know what you’re up, I too used to be an atheist
I’d recomend reading “Answering the New Atheism” by Scott Hahn. He answers questions and comparisions such as yours very intelligently to the point that you realize your fairy comparisions are flat out and utterly ridiculous.
peace friend
S
seeker777
Guest
…and I know what your up to!You got to be kidding me? What a mockery of a question. I know what you’re up, I too used to be an atheist
The, ’ I used to be an Atheist " is the oldest trick in the book.
Why is the question foolish?
S
sidonius
Guest
Back to the OP’s question: Do Faeries exist? I think they may, but if so they do not have anything to do with the economy of salvation. That is, their dispensation is different than ours, and we do well to keep away from needless speculation.
B
BSHoop96
Guest
B
BSHoop96
Guest
Just warning you guys now… this is Seeker’s favorite response often worded in a variety of ways as he so often displayed on the thread questioning whether God’s love was conditional or unconditional. You pretty much never move beyond it. Have fun.
S
seeker777
Guest
My asking for proof is an annoyance? Here I thought that this was an apologetics board?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
You wanted something that a non-atheist can do that an atheist can’t do. I provided you with an example.
Only God can prove anything of a religious nature. I’m not God, and therefore can’t prove to you that the aforesaid person received actual divine revelation, though I could show you how they’ve become more human (as defined by the Church).
The atheist’s only response to things he doesn’t understand is “prove it”, without realizing (apparently) that there are some things for which proof of a different sort is known only from within.
No atheist (or anyone else for that matter) can PROVE to me that they love another person, or that they find something really beautiful. I can choose to see their “proof” as proof of nothing but their wanting to have me believe that they do believe that.
Atheists don’t want proofs of things of God. They desperately want God to prove God to them without them having to put themselves out in any way.
Until the atheist is willing to receive, they won’t receive. Seems logical, n’est-ce pas?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
No He didn’t. God eventually knew, in “His time” (eternity), that satan would sin, but He did not direct that satan sin, as God only gifted satan with free will, which MEANS that satan COLD sin (not that he would sin).
Satan flung himself out of the beatific vision because he chose to cling to something which must “fling” away from God. Where satan ended up was not “earth” (the planet), but rather the “non-beatific vision” which is sometimes known as “earth”.
No he doesn’t. You’ve been reading too many “vampire” novels.
All the demons (exemplified by the first deceiving sinner, satan) merely tempt men to sin. They get nothing out of their temptations, as whenever they create an evil a greater good is always produced from it, which makes them CRAZY and agonizes them that much more.
Why would God not accept greater good resulting from lesser evil?
Your being redundant. But then, I do that all too often myself, so I’d best be quiet about yours in this instance.
God’s “time” is not like our time.God knew all of this ahead of time, yet went ahead and cast the most evil being in the universe in the same playground as his kids.
Satan’s sin was not real until it happened, and God didn’t create satan with the necessity of him eventually sinning.
Satan sinned because satan sinned, not because he was created to sin. He was NOT created to sin. He was created to choose, and he chose to sin.
The atheist thinks that God’s being “omnipotent” means that God created everything to necessarily run as a machine-maker would make it, where He determines all actions taken by everything in His created machine.
This is because the atheist thinks that the universe is “an utterly deterministic machine”.
God created all of the universe as a machine, except for two types of things, both of them persons.
Angels and men (humans). Only these were given free will, and are ALLOWED, by the power of the omnipotence of God, to act as they will within the bounds of their respective natures.
Why does possessing omnipotence preclude allowing a creature a free will which the omnipotent one won’t violate?
Your “argument” is that God must be evil if He allows evil, and since you don’t like the idea of an evil God in control of this obviously evil exhibiting world then God MUST not be allowed (by YOU) to exist!
Is that close to the way that you see it?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
You hit the right answer the very first time! Excellent!
Why do you think He doesn’t answer? He always answers. Are the answers you get not what you want to hear?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Ummmm… everything created is a part of the economy of salvation.
Do you think that there are beings with free will (which the fairies demonstrate they have) that aren’t either God, angels, demons, or men?
“Fairies” must be one of these things. Which fit? What that “fit” is tells you precisely where their place is in the economy of salvation.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
This is ALWAYS the atheists “single card”, which they make very dog-eared.
The atheist only HAS one card to play. I do wish that this player of the prove-it card was a bit more creative, though. He shuts down WAY too fast and with a very dull “plop”.
B
BSHoop96
Guest
What are you? A scientist.My asking for proof is an annoyance? Here I thought that this was an apologetics board?
Sometimes you have to go with faith.
Here’s a simplistic version of your argument.
*Me: I can’t prove to you scientifically that transubstantiation is real. We have faith that it is because Jesus said it.
You: Prove that He said it.
Me: It says so in Scripture.
You: Prove that the Scripture is true.*
On and on ad nauseum.
As I also pointed out in another thread, if you have ever listened to people like Staples vs. Gregg in a debate they each present their case in a respectful manner and then move on. I don’t believe you will hear one say “prove it”. What is this? The grade school playground?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Your asking for what both you and we know to be impossible for us to provide is simply BORING!
There are some common understandings which need to be in place before “apologetics” can happen, and when those things aren’t in place we’re not doing apologetics, but rather playing the “I know you are but what am I!?” game, which is the only game that atheists really know how to play, in actuality, with their one miserable little “prove-it” card.
Very boring.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
If the Christian God were a mere passive object, you might have a point. The Christian data tell a very different story: that the Object of faith is also a very active Subject. A man may be a disbeliever or an inactive believer in dogs, but once he is bitten by something that answers to notions of what a dog is, he has some explaining to do. God is not modified by our ideas of Him - He acts on us even if we don’t acknowledge His existence.
Besides, the “function” of this Subject is far wider than that of faeries; it is universal. If - as someone suggested - faeries are responsible for the world, they are gods, not mere faeries. But there is only One God.I wish people would make up their minds, I really do - religions are found incredible because:
- they are all the same
- they are all different
Faith is found parochial & God incredible because: - the earth is the only inhabited planet [the idea in the 1920s]
- the earth is only one of millions of inhabited planets [the idea now]
Atheists cannot make up their minds - they contradict themselves except in their determination not to believe. The problem is in the will - not in the understanding. If they wanted to believe, they would be enabled to.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The Gospel makes a statement. It contradicts that idea. That idea is not based on anything - asserting it does not make it a true record of what happened. I’m assuming - wrongly ? - that you would lay foundations before building a house: like a house, that idea needs foundations. And unless JP2 (& the 5th-century poet Sedulius quoted in that EWTN link) knows something about time travel we do not, the idea has no foundations. Or if it has - what are they ? Or have they vanished away, like the equally elusive “golden plates” of the Book of Mormon ? Or did Sedulius travel in time back to the tomb to see Jesus meet the BVM ? Maybe he had a vision. Or maybe - what is far more likely - he muddled his Maries: there are several of them. Gregory I did so later on, so the idea is hardly out of the question.
Sorry, but an irrational idea which has no foundations & for which not one scrap of evidence has been adduced deserves no respect. I’ll stay with the Evangelists, TY v. much Denying that is not at all like discussing faeries: the Sedulian idea is contradicted by sources which (to say the very least possible) are more likely in every way to to be accurate, & they do not hint at any faery presence at the Tomb; or if faeries were present, the Evangelists were oddly remiss in not mentioning it.
Maybe it’s one of those (pseudo-)apostolic traditions that do so much to bring Catholic Tradition into ridicule & contempt
CT is an expression of the Deposit of Faith - & the drunken fictions of illiterate peasants & hysterical fantasists have absolutely nothing to do with that 
Pseudo-traditions are like dirt defecated into the well of truth: they pollute it. How is the Apostolic Tradition of the CC to escape being poisoned when **that **happens ? Nothing could be less Catholic than to smother the authentic Tradition with such wretched tinsel. People deserve better than such mindless balderdash.
O
Oakleaf
Guest
In our Industrial-Technological Age, faeries seem like something Romantic and closer to Nature (which we idealize from our hyper-regulated concrete cities) than ourselves. Something sweet and innocent and playful, and completely harmless to ourselves.
In the middle ages, when Faery lore was taken seriously and people were in fact closer to nature (and closer to death) in their daily lives, Faeries were not such harmless beings. Faeries then were human-like yet not human beings associated with disappearances, infant death and deformity, and the capriciousness of the natural world. They were called “Fata” or “Fates,” hardly an innocuous title. They were thought of as aerial or wispy, playful and capricious with a malignant edge.
If you look in the early Gospel and Church Father traditions, I believe you will find their counterparts without too much difficulty.
In the middle ages, when Faery lore was taken seriously and people were in fact closer to nature (and closer to death) in their daily lives, Faeries were not such harmless beings. Faeries then were human-like yet not human beings associated with disappearances, infant death and deformity, and the capriciousness of the natural world. They were called “Fata” or “Fates,” hardly an innocuous title. They were thought of as aerial or wispy, playful and capricious with a malignant edge.
If you look in the early Gospel and Church Father traditions, I believe you will find their counterparts without too much difficulty.
S
seeker777
Guest
An entire lifetime of silence? Yep, silence isn’t that helpful. If there is a God, his silence is most unhelpful.
- Status