Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[belorg]

Forgive my skepticism. But wasn’t it you who once proclaimed that Catholicism promoted beating their children?

Thankfully for you, that statement made out of sheer ignorance of Catholic doctrine was deleted. It was to your benefit that this is ill-informed statement is not out there for all to see how poorly you understood the faith you left.

But that is the evidence I use to assess how well you have contemplated the Trinity. The conclusion: not so much.

No, I did not proclaim that and it’s really a pity that my statement was deleted, because if it hadn’t been deleted, you could see it in the correct context.
So, I should actually ask the moderators to delete your accusation here, but I am not going to hide behind censorship to make nonsensical claims.
Suffices to say that if that is the evidence you use to assess how well I have contemplated the Trinity (a whole diffrejnt subject than beating your children) I do not see why anyone would take your "assessment " seriously.

 

[belorg]

Reason is limited from the outset by the axioms or premises one allows or assumes. Scientific materialism likewise limits reason from the outset by denying the possibility or value of any premises that cannot be represented by physical properties.

That is true, but since I am not a scinetific materialist, this does not apply to me.

Truth be told, the Catholic position is less limiting to reason than scientific materialism because it accepts both natural data and the possibility of supernatural revelation provided that the two don’t contradict each other.

Your position is actually the more limiting one from the outset.

Since that’s not my position, please address your comments to someone else.

 

[belorg]

Indeed.

And, peculiarly, this doctrine that scientific materialism espouses, “All of reality must be represented by physical properties reproducible in scientific experiments” cannot be proven by scientific experiments.

And that’s why I am not a scientific materialist. So, do you actually have any sort of point to make, PRmerger?

 

[PRmerger]

My position is: let’s investigate whether this is true or not. Am I allowed to do this?
And the only way I can in vestogate things is by using reason and bny not limiting this reason from the outset.

This is very Catholic of you to say, belorg!

Please note: your belief that faith “limits” reason is a faith-based assertion. You believe it simply because you believe it. Not because it has any logic, reason, or science to it.

Oh, the irony!

 

[PRmerger]

No, I started with the premise that the Trinity, like all other claims is something to be investigated. But I did not start from the assumption that the Trinity cannot possibly be wrong. If you mean that by ‘rejecting your faith’ then I am guilty.

That is indeed what I mean. Guilty! You started, when you rejected your faith, by saying, “The Trinity cannot possibly be true.”

And imagine saying that. IF God exists, that he simply could not be a Trinity.

That boggles logic, reason and basic philosophy, doesn’t it?

 

[belorg]

This is very Catholic of you to say, belorg!

Please note: your belief that faith “limits” reason is a faith-based assertion. You believe it simply because you believe it. Not because it has any logic, reason, or science to it.

Oh, the irony!

I do not believe that faith limits reason. I believe it can limit reason and therefore, reason should come frist. That’s the only way to assess whether faith limits or not.

 

[belorg]

That is indeed what I mean. Guilty! You started, when you rejected your faith, by saying, “The Trinity cannot possibly be true.”

And imagine saying that. IF God exists, that he simply could not be a Trinity.

That boggles logic, reason and basic philosophy, doesn’t it?

You are very good at strawmanning, aren’t you, PRmerger?

 

[PRmerger]

It is reasonable to assume that if there is a God, it is not likely that we would ever fully understand Him, yes.

:dancing::extrahappy::bounce:

But it’s not reasonable not to try and understand as much about Him ( or about anything else for that matter) as possible

This is very Catholic of you to say, belorg.

What is unreasonable is assuming from the outset that we won’t be able to undersatnd something.

Umm…this lies in direct contradiction to your comment above, if that “something” is “God”.

If it’s, say, how the body fights off germs through immunizations, well, then, yes, it’s unreasonable to assume we won’t be able to fully understand that.

(Unless you’re a 5 year old child and then it is, indeed, unreasonable to expect him to understand that fully.)

If it’s the case that something cannot be understood, we’ll learn that by investigating it…

Exactly. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

No, I did not proclaim that and it’s really a pity that my statement was deleted, because if it hadn’t been deleted, you could see it in the correct context.

Ah, so you *did *say it, but it has to be understood “in the correct context”? Is that your position?

Suffices to say that if that is the evidence you use to assess how well I have contemplated the Trinity (a whole diffrejnt subject than beating your children) I do not see why anyone would take your "assessment " seriously.

I take *all *of your posts that I have read as evidence that you were poorly catechized.

 

[PRmerger]

And that’s why I am not a scientific materialist. So, do you actually have any sort of point to make, PRmerger?

Then you need not respond to that post, belorg. Not everything is about you, dear.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not believe that faith limits reason. I believe it can limit reason and therefore, reason should come frist. That’s the only way to assess whether faith limits or not.

Excellent!

 

[belorg]

:dancing::extrahappy::bounce:

This is very Catholic of you to say, belorg.

Umm…this lies in direct contradiction to your comment above, if that “something” is “God”.

No, it doesn’t. But maybe I should stop discussing things with you until you have learned how to read.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it doesn’t. But maybe I should stop discussing things with you until you have learned how to read.

I think you should stop discussing with me because you are starting to squirm in being confronted with the truth.

You don’t like that.

And, as such, you ought to stop discussing before, in your frustration, you say something that gets you banned.

You need to be here, belorg.

So you can get some proper catechesis.

 

[belorg]

Ah, so you *did *say it, but it has to be understood “in the correct context”? Is that your position?

No I did not say it. That was your own poor interpretation of what I really said.

I take *all *of your posts that I have read as evidence that you were poorly catechized.

Well, if you are so poor at interpreting, that’s no surprise.

 

[belorg]

Then you need not respond to that post, belorg. Not everything is about you, dear.

You responded to Peter’s post which was a direct reply to me, so it was about me.

 

[PRmerger]

You responded to Peter’s post which was a direct reply to me, so it was about me.

If you’re not a materialist, then ignore it. Sheesh!

It wasn’t about you.

 

[belorg]

I think you should stop discussing with me because you are starting to squirm in being confronted with the truth.

You don’t like that.

Au contraire, PR, I love being confronted with the truth. That’s what made me an atheist in the first place.

And, as such, you ought to stop discussing before, in your frustration, you say something that gets you banned.

I say what I think I have to say. If it gets me banned, then so be it. Jesus wasn’t understood by the majority of the pepoel in the 1st centrury either.

You need to be here, belorg.

So you can get some proper catechesis.

Well, I am waiting for some ‘proper catechesis’. It seems there aren’t too many peopole here who are doing a decent job at it.

 

[PRmerger]

Au contraire, PR, I love being confronted with the truth. That’s what made me an atheist in the first place.

Then stop squirming here.

I say what I think I have to say. If it gets me banned, then so be it. Jesus wasn’t understood by the majority of the pepoel in the 1st centrury either.

If you get banned, it won’t be because you are Christ-like.

Well, I am waiting for some ‘proper catechesis’. It seems there aren’t too many peopole here who are doing a decent job at it.

Just like the people in the 1st century didn’t feel like Jesus did a very decent job at it.

What can I say? If you’re confronted with teachings and you reject the truth…that’s your own free will.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

saudi arabia, the taliban and the Amish - they are real. people who live by faith more than any other.

its your turn to back up your opinion. give me examples of faithful people that are also the most accomplished in the fields of reason. begin.

A lot, really a lot, of great scientist of the past were believers (also faithful), starting from Galileo, then Newton, then Mendel etc. And now there’s also a lot of believers among them. Moreover, if we speak of reason, a lot of philosophers were, and are, believers (for example, in the past, Saint Thomas; in the XX century Martin Buber, Kirkegaard …).

I do not believe that faith limits reason. I believe it can limit reason and therefore, reason should come frist. That’s the only way to assess whether faith limits or not.

Reason, as almost any function of our mind, needs some kind of faith. This is one more reason to do not put faith and reason in opposition.

 

[belorg]

Reason, as almost any function of our mind, needs some kind of faith. This is one more reason to do not put faith and reason in opposition.

No, Alberto, reason needs some axioms to support its use. That’s not the same as ‘faith’.
Reason does not need a pre-set limitation. It is most probably so that reason is going to meet its limitations, but that’s another matter.