B
buffalo
Guest
That is the classic understanding It is not so black and white anymore,
Now we know unconscious people can feel pain.
- Status
Now we know unconscious people can feel pain.
F
Freddy
Guest
So unconscious people are…um…conscious.Freddy:
That is the classic understanding It is not so black and white anymore,
Now we know unconscious people can feel pain.
Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes, but they are not always to express it at the time. They heard and understood.
F
Freddy
Guest
You’re being a great help.Freddy:
Yes…
O
o_mlly
Guest
Please show the citation that back up your claim.
R
rossum
Guest
OK, so you posted a piece form an explicitly young earth site but you didn’t realise that it was a young earth site.
That just makes you look careless.
Show me one piece on that site that is compatible with a 5 billion year old earth.
To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:
The Kolbe Center’s YEC foolishness exposes Catholicism to the “ridicule of unbelievers”. You have probably noticed some of that ridicule on this thread. Yes, YEC really is that ridiculous and fully deserving of all the ridicule it receives.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Atheist Playbook Rule #1, again.
Yet another false claim from you. Dance all you want around it but the truth is Fr. Ripperger never wrote and most certainly never was, as you claimed, "clear that he treats the earth as 10,000 years old at most."
Even for you, this is outrageous, a new low – an ad hominem wrapped in a red herring.
Apply your own fallacy to you: “Look, Rossum is writing on a Catholic web site! He must be YEC.”
The age of the earth is not premised to Ripperger’s argument.
He published his book 8 years ago. It’s available on those other YEC sites known as Amazon, Google, Barnes&Noble, Target, etc.
Rossum’s got a double but he going for a triple fallacy. Please read what is offered at Kolbe before smearing them as fools. Shame, shame, shame. Keep ridiculing, it only shows ignorance.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Another o_mlly error. There are a lot more gods in my scriptures than in yours:
Does that look like atheism to you? Another obvious and avoidable error.
OK, you want something specific. How about this from Father Ripperger’s argument:
So, according to Father Ripperger, Einstein’s parents were greater physicists than Einstein. Usain Bolt’s parents could run faster than their son and Tom Brady’s parents were both better Quarterbacks than Tom.
A single bullet is “greater” than the human death that it causes? Really?
This is not a tenable position. Some causes are less than their effects; some causes are greater than their effects. There are also many different ways to measure “greater” and “lesser”. For instance, must all children be shorter than their parents because the offspring cannot be “greater” in height than their cause?
If the saying, “The child is father to the man,” is true then no adult can be greater than they were as a child.
This premise is obviously false; some effects are greater than their causes.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Pathetic. You’ve been exposed but you continue to deflect. No one called you an atheist.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
There’s a paper entitled Creation and Time available as a pdf: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0k4BijwuqKRDHrx192yD9Grossum:
Please show the citation that back up your claim.
And what does this short work promote? ‘…the church’s magisterial teaching on creation set forth by Lateran IV’ (which was held a few years back in 1213 don’t you know).
Note the following:
“The Pontifical Biblical Commision (1909) establishes that Genesis contains 'stories of events which actually happened which corresponds with historical accuracy and objective truth”.
Well, no doubt about what the paper is proposing I guess. A literal acceptance of Genesis.
Would you say that someone who supported this work was a creationist? Would you say that someone who said the following endorsed what it said?
“While much needed work has been done to show the deficiencies of evolution from a scientific perspective, very little has been done on theological grounds. This short work provides a much needed contribution in this area.”
I would. Guess who it was.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Obviously you do not understand the principle you attempt to criticize. Accidents are not essences. All your characters above have the same essences: rationality, and locomotion.
And now that’s just ridiculous.
Poetry? Wordsworth, really?
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
He ends the fallacy of macroevolution of bug to man, doesn’t he?
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.
Perhaps you’ll get to those later years one day.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Read it a long time ago. Show us where Ripperger writes anything that was clear that he treats the earth as 10,000 years old at most.
Wow, you are a real Magnum PI. A Catholic priest who believes in creation. Whooda guessed that!
Do you have a point?
F
Freddy
Guest
He didn’t write anything in that paper. I thought you would have known that. But it’s a paper that supports creationism (not ‘creation’ - you know the difference). A literal reading of Genesis. As I indicated. And, as I showed, he supports it. He endorses it. He thinks it’s worth associating his name with it. He backs their viewpoint. He thinks the world is a few thousand years old.Freddy:
Read it a long time ago. Show us where Ripperger writes anything that was clear that he treats the earth as 10,000 years old at most.
As do you.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
No facts, just mind-reading again?
Maybe Magnum PI would be a stretch role for you. Go back and work on your Joe Friday impersonation, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I gave you all the facts. He endorsed a paper on creationism. On a literal reading of Genesis. If you don’t you can always…I dunno…deny it?Freddy:
No facts, just mind-reading again?
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
You didn’t read Ripperger’s comment, did you? Just another lurch to the Atheist’s Playbook.
After you read his comment, get back to me if you don’t understand what he wrote.
F
Freddy
Guest
I was just thinking it’s kinda funny. All this time getting you to admit what you really believe, and now we’ve found out I’m starting to see if you want to deny it.Freddy:
You didn’t read Ripperger’s comment, did you? Just another lurch to the Atheist’s Playbook.
Irony, eh? Got to love it…
R
rossum
Guest
I have some understanding of Thomist Accident and Substance. Buddhist philosophy denies the existence of Substance/Essence/Soul and only accepts the existence of Accident.
Substance/Essence/Soul is a reification of various internal models our brain constructs. Those internal models have no more reality than the ‘water’ in a mirage. That ‘water’ corresponds to one of our internal models, so we incorrectly think that it is water.
Our senses are imperfect so inevitably our internal models are also imperfect. The mismatch between our internal models and external reality are one of the causes of suffering.
S
stoplooklisten
Guest
Our senses are imperfect but they perceive much. Our human reasoning is imperfect but it perceives much. There is declared to be a mismatch between our internal models and external reality. So, what’s your frame of reference for understanding external reality? If God has revealed Himself in natural (and supernatural) revelation, shouldn’t we take notice? If somethings are uncertain, shouldn’t we search for greater clarity. Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? First century martyrs testify that Jesus did rise from the dead.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Is the willingness to die for your belief any form of a certificate of that belief being true?
- Status