Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

  • Thread starter Thread starter mgoforth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
Well, that is a perfect inllustration of why I think reason should come before faith. because if you start with faith, meaning doctrinal faith andtry to bend over backwards to make reason fit into it, you get stuck in your own words and startt claiming that ‘photons dominated the universe’ means the same as ’ there was just light, photons. 'Then maybe 'from nothing ’ means that in the universe, ‘nothing’ dominated, buit there was still ‘something’ ‘somewhere’.
That’s one of the reasons why I left Catholicism, BTW, bending over backwards hurt my back too mucjh
Click to expand...
Ah. And this is another great example of people leaving the Catholic faith who don’t understand it.

There is nothing in Catholicism that demands that one “bend over backwards” to make reason fit into it.

That’s a statement borne out of ignorance.

I once heard a Catholic proclaim, “I believe all that the Church professes, except for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I simply cannot believe that Mary’s parents conceived her in any other way than the natural way.”

So here’s another Cathollic rejecting that which the Catholic Church has never proclaimed.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Good sarcasm does not depend on a strawman depiction, but vividly and clearly shows the inherent incoherence of what is being jested. The fact that the butt of your sarcasm wasn’t even recognizable, except perhaps to you, might demonstrate that you were only “sarcasming” your own crippled version of an otherwise coherent viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe it wasn’t such good sarcasm then, Pig most certainly got my point, though, and the very fact that you are complaining about recognizable sarcasm instead of trying to refiute my crippled version makes me wonder how ‘coherent’ this viewpoint is.
 
belorg said:
You forget
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

If I was going to imagine a sequence, having no information (neither modern scientific nor Revelation), I think I would be sure to make the earth first and then create light and not have light created before the earth was created. I would also create water before I created light.

The person who wrote this must have had a revelation before he could write this, because since then science has learned us that the heaven and earth were already around long before the Big Bang, and that even water was already around.

But however 'tis a small matter.
Click to expand...
This is like saying, “My lover wrote me a letter in which he said, ‘Your eyes are beautiful stars’ to me”.

I reject my lover because clearly he has no scientific understanding of ophthalmology. Or of astronomy."
 
PRmerger said:
Ah. And this is another great example of people leaving the Catholic faith who don’t understand it.

There is nothing in Catholicism that demands that one “bend over backwards” to make reason fit into it.

That’s a statement borne out of ignorance.

I once heard a Catholic proclaim, “I believe all that the Church professes, except for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I simply cannot believe that Mary’s parents conceived her in any other way than the natural way.”

So here’s another Cathollic rejecting that which the Catholic Church has never proclaimed.
Click to expand...
Have you even read what I replied to, PR? The claim that the Genesis story is an accurate depiction of scientific findings about cosmology. If someone claims that, he is bending over backwards. And FYI, I do know what the Immaculate Conception is about,
 
PRmerger said:
This is like saying, “My lover wrote me a letter in which he said, ‘Your eyes are beautiful stars’ to me”.

I reject my lover because clearly he has no scientific understanding of ophthalmology. Or of astronomy."
Click to expand...
Since you obviously do not knwo what you are replying to, I suggest yoy actually read my post before you reply. Because this has nothing to do with it.
 
belorg said:
Have you even read what I replied to, PR? The claim that the Genesis story is an accurate depiction of scientific findings about cosmology. If someone claims that, he is bending over backwards
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty dogmatic to me, yes?
And FYI, I do know what the Immaculate Conception is about,
Click to expand...
I have faith that this is true and that you do know that! But my intuition tells me you learned what it is only recently. 🙂
 
belorg said:
Have you even read what I replied to, PR? The claim that the Genesis story is an accurate depiction of scientific findings about cosmology. If someone claims that, he is bending over backwards. And FYI, I do know what the Immaculate Conception is about,
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of a Magisterial (that is, the teaching authority of the Church) document that enjoins upon Catholics the paradigm that we must “bend over backwards” in order to make faith fit in with reason?

I will accept anything that tacitly implies this–I will not be a dogmatist and demand the phrase be “bend over backwards” but will accept anything from the Magisterium that has that spirit.

Oh, and are you still looking for the definition of “apprehend” that includes “reason alone” or "reason only’? I must, sadly, be more dogmatic on this and will not accept anything that doesn’t include that phrase.

Right now, the fall back position is that you have made a statement without any evidence. You believe, based on faith-alone, that the definnition of “apprehend” is with “reason alone”.

Although there is no evidence, thus far, provided to demonstrate where you get this belief from.
 
PRmerger said:
That sounds pretty dogmatic to me, yes?
Click to expand...
No, PR, that’s just reason.
I have faith that this is true and that you do know that! But my intuition tells me you learned what it is only recently. 🙂
Click to expand...
No, you don’t have faith that this is true and you should not trust your intuition on this either, because it is not only recently, unless you think of 1970 as ‘recently’ of course.
 
belorg said:
Well, that is a perfect inllustration of why I think reason should come before faith. because if you start with faith, meaning doctrinal faith andtry to bend over backwards to make reason fit into it, you get stuck in your own words and startt claiming that ‘photons dominated the universe’ means the same as ’ there was just light, photons. 'Then maybe 'from nothing ’ means that in the universe, ‘nothing’ dominated, buit there was still ‘something’ ‘somewhere’.
That’s one of the reasons why I left Catholicism, BTW, bending over backwards hurt my back too mucjh
Click to expand...
Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If it is just a case of a choice of words; just light or photons dominated the universe.
I refuse to believe in astrophysics any more, and as a result cut myself off from a nice job.

‘And there was light’ is not exclusively light-alone!
 
PRmerger said:
Can you give an example of a Magisterial (that is, the teaching authority of the Church) document that enjoins upon Catholics the paradigm that we must “bend over backwards” in order to make faith fit in with reason?
Click to expand...
The Trinity, the infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiiation, the Atonement, Hell, Purgatory, Women Priests, Homosexuality, Artifiical Birth Control, God’s Perfect Love, …
Right now, the fall back position is that you have made a statement without any evidence. You believe, based on faith-alone, that the definnition of “apprehend” is with “reason alone”.
Click to expand...
If ‘apprehend’ can mean anything you want it to mean, you are correct. If it means ‘understand’ then understanding is done by reason (alone).
Although there is no evidence, thus far, provided to demonstrate where you get this belief from.
Click to expand...
And there is no evidence, thus far, provided where the belief that understanding is done by other means than reason comes from.
 
pig said:
Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. If it is just a case of a choice of words; just light or photons dominated the universe.
I refuse to believe in astrophysics any more, and as a result cut myself off from a nice job.

‘And there was light’ is not exclusively light-alone!
Click to expand...
But, unfortunately for you, you did not say ‘and there was ligjht’, pig, you said,
"From what I understand, the universe, for the first 2,500 years of its existence was **just **light, - photons. " Just light, means AFAICT, light alone. So, you are bending over backwards, pig
 
belorg said:
The Trinity, the infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiiation, the Atonement, Hell, Purgatory, Women Priests, Homosexuality, Artifiical Birth Control, God’s Perfect Love, .
Click to expand...
No, belorg. Those are examples of teachings you object to.

I asked for a document from the Magisterium that enjoins upon Catholics that “bending over backwards” is how Catholics come to an understanding of the Truth.

Otherwise, what you are proclaiming is Catholic teaching is another example of your poor catechesis.
 
PRmerger said:
Please provide evidence for this.
Click to expand...
I’ll ask my wife to send you an e-mail. Or do you want more evidence? A photograph of me and a newpaper of 30 October and a copy of fides et ratio, perhaps. Shall I ask Mac Taylor to investigate this?
You claimed to know that I was honest, remember. So, you don’t knowo that anymore?
 
belorg said:
But, unfortunately for you, you did not say ‘and there was ligjht’, pig, you said,
"From what I understand, the universe, for the first 2,500 years of its existence was **just **light, - photons. " Just light, means AFAICT, light alone. So, you are bending over backwards, pig
Click to expand...
Sadly science and my understanding do not stand still. My words are not dogma, sorry.😉
 
PRmerger said:
No, belorg. Those are examples of teachings you object to.

I asked for a document from the Magisterium that enjoins upon Catholics that “bending over backwards” is how Catholics come to an understanding of the Truth.

Otherwise, what you are proclaiming is Catholic teaching is another example of your poor catechesis.
Click to expand...
I do not think the Catholic Magisterium is stupid enough to openly admit they want people to bend over backwards, PR. So, what are you asking for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top