Mormonism is either solipsism, or chaos.

  • Thread starter Thread starter love-bias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PaulDupre:
He is quoting from The Book of Abraham, which has been proven to be a fraud. Joseph Smith claimed (and the title page states) that the papyrus scroll he used to translate the B of A (he bought it from a traveling carnival show) was written by Abraham himself, in his own handwriting. Then after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptologists cracked the code of hyroglyphics and could read the scroll. They discovered that the scroll was a common pagan funerary text, The Book of Breathings, and dated from just a few hundred years before Christ. Even the LDS Church acknowledges that Abraham did not write the scroll, and Joseph Smith could not have translated the B of A from that scroll like he claimed he did. Yet they still cite it as scripture. Now they have changed their story, saying that Joseph did not translate from the scroll (as Joseph himself claimed), but rather was inspired by the scroll to receive the Book of Abraham by direct revelation. :confused:
Sheesh.
Paul (an ex-Mormon by the grace of God)
I know it’s not my place to respond to every single post, but I just want to say again Paul, I’m so appreciative or your insight. Wow.

God bless you for coming to the truth, by the way! :cool:
 
40.png
deltaguy:
I might point out as a momonshave been taught that you are not totaly condemed if you are not mormon that when the judgment comes that you will be judged acordily to your knoledge and your life. eg. if your catholic you follow all the rules do what is right and are a great and righteous person what says that you cannot enter because you wherenot mormon you would be given the opertunity to learn all that needs to be learned so no condeming other religions with us…
Condemning? Sheesh! Why can’t we have a fun logic party? I mean am I the only one who likes to discuss things? Can I not point out where I think there is a flaw(sssssssss X sssssssss)?

I’ll be honest, if I saw Mormonism as true, then I would go for it: I’d become a subscriber to Mormonism. However, I do not see it as true. There are certain elements I just can’t get past. Should you not be trying to dialog with me in the spirit of such affairs, in hopes of converting me, instead of telling me how wrong I am for saying when something doesn’t make sense to me?
to answer your creator question heres something i found on this site wreitten in by a catholic person explained what the mormons beleived quite well…

What can be detemined is that Mormons simply do not view the fall of man as a negative event. It was in the plan of Heavenly Father. As you may know if you have some knowledge of LDS teaching, Mormons believe we all preexisted as spirits with God prior to creation. The purpose of our lives here is to have free will, the ability to follow or reject the gospel (as Mormons see it) and therefore become gods ourselves (Heavenly Father went through a similar process at some point in his past). For this to be possible, good and evil had to exist in the world. The Fall accomplished this. Adam was actually the being known as the archangel Michael, and was sent to Earth to begin the human race and open the door for men to make these choices and become gods.
Thank you for sharing that.
OK if you beleive this is so hoaky explain to me this how did god become god? why is he god? who made him god? how did time start? who came first time or god?..
Exactly. Now I think we’re getting somewhere. Mormonism says the Universe is run by naturalism. Monotheism says the Universe is run by a conscious intelligence.

If all is known by one God, then that means this God literally fills the Universe. (In a way, I’m using the Biblical meaning of the word, “to know” i.e. like, to become one with, etc etc)

Now there can only be one “all.” This is where Mormons declare the existence of such an “all” God to not be here. Naturally then, with “all” still existing without conscious intelligence, we have: yes, again I say, CHAOS.

What’s so hoaky about chaos? Well, if chaos were true, then you my friend, do not have consciousness at this very moment. Your consciousnes is, in a way, just a big mistake. (Oh but isn’t that Satan’s biggest wish???)
also another thing we get knocked as un christian because we do not beleive in the trinity…
Well yes, generally our definition of Christian = knowing of the Trinity. Then, do you still wonder why you “get knocked” as unChristian by we who have an opposite definition of Christianity?
explain theis to me …if they are all the one person
God = What.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit (each) = Who.

Who = one Person.

Three Persons, One God.

1+1+1 = three Persons in One God.
how could jesus come to earth and get a body if he is god and the holy spirit?
Yep. See above.

Also, how did God create creation? God is God, that’s how. All things are possible with God. (You know not the Power of God!)
god has to stay in heaven son’t he and dosn’t the holy spirit meant to guide us…
God = Heaven. God goes where God pleases. 🙂

CONTINUED------->
 
CONTINUED------->
so your saying the “trinity” was able to make jesus on earth god in heaven and the holy spirit all at once you expect to beleive this…
See above. God can be anywhere. So too, can each Person in the Holy Trinity. Also, the Holy Spirit is not the Son (and vice versa).
they are separtate people …
Amen. Each is however, wholly God. God is in each of the Persons, and each of the Persons are in God.
jesus is gods son it says so so i can’t understand the trinity…
You cannot Fathom God. Don’t stress yourself, though–neither can I fathom God.

The Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Them. Note: None creates another; but rather, is in a way (by being God) the Other(s). You are however correct in that they are distinct Persons. Each Person is however, wholly God. (Remember, God is not a Person)
btw “mormons” or preferably latterday saints are not stupid
I never called “them” stupid. I only said Mormonism was/is fallacious. And it is.
they do not talk like they were born before christ they are normal smart people…
Oh no, not born before Christ… you’d say, “with” Christ. Well, no: actually, you shouldn’t say “born” at all: merely existing with, always.
you’d be surprised howmay celebritys are mormons… are they so strupid… might i point out one of the most recognised mormons… Corniel sanders Creater Of KFC joined the religion in his later days FACT it is …look it up he spent 1 million dollars revoking all the posters with a cigar in his mouth …

as again lata
thanks
Satan is the Prince of this World. So what?

again, thanks for posting. I enjoyed it. Please do so again.

jason
 
“deltaguy” regarding your “finally” post, I’ll respond tomorrow. I won’t be able to access the internet until tomorrow. I have to leave at this moment.

Additionally, I’ll be (hopefully) concluding my argument against fallacy–whoops, I mean, my argument against Mormonism.

So, I thank any “audience” I have reading this stuff, for reading and hanging on.

Until tomorrow, God bless you, my readers!!!

p.s. go ahead and take a stab at it too, if you want to. (Either for or against)

This should be fun! It’s educational! So no frowns, from anyone!

🙂 jason
 
40.png
love-bias:
Hey Paul this is a most excellent post. I’m sorry but yesterday I focused all my attention on post #4, and skipped the rest of the posts (until today).

I should have quoted you and given you some good credit, becuase you definitely deserved it. You still do.

God bless you!

p.s. “Mormon-speak.” lol, I’m going to use that in the future. (Is it a reference to newspeak? 😃 )

jason
Yes, it is an Orwellian allusion. Mormons engage in a form of double-think and double-speak that is truly amazing. It takes so much mental effort to suppress the cognitive dissonance that they frequently have a rather blank facial affect. It is also the reason why Mormons as a group are the biggest consumers of anti-depressants like Prozac and Welbutrin.
Jason, I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Do you read Chesterton? 👍
Paul
 
40.png
deltaguy:
so your saying the “trinity” was able to make jesus on earth god in heaven and the holy spirit all at once you expect to beleive this… they are separtate people …jesus is gods son it says so so i can’t understand the trinity…
Hi Delta Guy,
You think pretty deeply for a 16 year-old kid, however…

You should be aware that you are buying into a huge assumption that Mormonism makes, namely that if you don’t understand something right now, it cannot be true.

In the pre-1986 LDS Temple Endowment ceremony (the one I used to attend), Adam states that he does not believe in the trinity because “I cannot understand such a being”. This prideful attitude pervades all of Mormonism. All of Joseph Smith’s (they’re actually Sidney Rigdon’s) doctrines attempt to reduce God to something we can understand, making the Mormon “god” a man who was born on another planet, was promoted to godhood and had to have sex with his daughter Mary to conceive Jesus (that’s a sin in my religion).

Of course, Mormon leaders never address the question of “where did the first god come from?” or phrased differently “where did the intelligent matter that god is made of come from?” Mormon teaching doesn’t solve the problem of first cause, it just avoids it.
Think about it and have a great weekend, 🙂
Paul
 
oat soda:
i don’t think you can use clever and mormon in the same sentence.
Oh, by all means; you not only can, but must.

Think about it: how could they sustain the growth they have without being clever?

Smart? Well educated in both philosophy and theology?

Not!

Clever? That’s an entirely different issue…
 
40.png
deltaguy:
ok if you don’t believe in “mormonism” (might i add the term momonism is made up and has nothing to do with them) then don’t get on with things im sick of people bad mouthing them there no different to you and if you’ve got nothing better to do than sit here n try n proove them wrong you need to get a life… for one what makes them so different to yourselfs and your religion…

*you both worship christ (all though people think they worship joseph smith which is not true)

*both believe in god

*both honour the 10 comandments

*both beleive jesus suffered and atoned for us

both beleive that the only way to heaven is through christ…

i could keep going on and on… sure they have some different things but is it wrong for them to beleive that… whether it is right or wrong its none of yuor buisness… its religion is based on almost the same priciples as any christian one… i could continue forever but my point is back off and leave them alone its not your place to judge them… do not judge unless ye be judged i recall a scipture saying… you and all you other people who spend there lives trying to prove other religions wrong you should be ashamed of yourselves get a life…

… by the way im only 16 and a normal guy with a life and friends and lives normally but i thought this message needs to be shared… any anti religion is wrong… stick to your own you beleive it good for you…

Bye… take care
Well, Deltaguy, either there is truth which is absolute, or there isn’t (there is no third alternative). If there is absolute truth, then
truth is not relative; and when things that are contradictory, one is true and one is not. the LSD religion absolutley contradicts statemtents of Christianity. One of them is false (unless the true statement is that there is no God, immutable or changeable, but we won’t go there).

If there is no absolute truth (if truth is relative), then there is no truth at all, at which point we are all wasting our time…
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Do you read Chesterton?
Well, no. I intend to, however. I only heard of Chesterton a couple of months ago to be honest. I’ve heard he’s really good.

But I’ll definitely start reading at least one of his books very soon.

jason
 
I’m sure you strongly dislike me breaking down your posts like this deltaguy… Sorry bud. 'Tis something I feel I must do.

(You might even call it my religion… and, lol, surely you haven’t anything against my religion?)
40.png
deltaguy:
I want to point out that i beleive no religion is totaly wrong yet we can neva no how totaly right they are…
Your use of the word “totaly” really does astound me…

Hmm… How do you know what “totaly” means? What is “totaly?”

Let me propose something: “totaly” is when I tell you that your left hand has seven fingers, one eye ball, two noses, and emits–naturally–a cotton-candy smell. :confused:

Yeah, well, whether that represents what you could see with your own eyes (“truth”), or not: that my good friend, is “totaly.”

So can we know if something is “totaly” true?

I think yes.

Do you know what a sample is? Common enough word in the English language, no?

A sample is a representative image of a much larger “reality.”

So how do we know if this which I speak of, “All Powerful God” is really there? Can we?

Let’s take a sample of this “God:” look inward, my good man, and see two things:
  1. you exist.
  2. you didn’t create yourself.
(That should tell you something: there is a God, and you are not “it.”)
I have friends from every where and i know alot of stuff from every where…
The same goes for myself.
and i see no evil or total wrongness…
I’m sorry but the last person I heard telling me that, ended up in a maximum security prison.

…not really. 😛
we are all sons and daughters of god no matter wat flag you go by our blood is still red and our bones are still white…
Universal truth, my friend… Universal truth… good, I like that. I wholly agree with you there.
we gota learn that bagging each other dose no good…
Amen.
Also I might point out I am a less active mormon due to some of the people at my wards…
In Jesus’ Name, may the true Holy Spirit of God speak to you. May you come to the truth. May you come into the Catholic Church.
and some things i am not cirtain about in it but i know what is right and what is wrong…
“…i see no evil or total wrongness…” :hmmm:
i see no bad with them or n e christianity technically we worship the same person…
I’m going to need some serious REM sleep this weekend…

“i see no bad with [smothering yourself] or [in breathing] technically [those are] the same [things].”
i mean christian religions must bag each other more than bagging people who worship a different god all togetha…
You know, unfortunately I think you are correct there. (Though technically it isn’t the religions that are doing the bagging) You’ve hit the nail on the head: there are so many false Christians who dress up as Christians and turn others away from the truth.

Good job there… I do agree with you. That’s why people like these on Catholic.com are here though: to try correcting the evil, mistaken perceptions given off by impostors. We’re here to help, friend. Not to tear ya down! We build the innocent person up, by tearing down hurtful ideas.
Where all on the same side were all sons and daughters of god lets act that way
Well unfortunately one cannot become an Oxford University Graduate until: he/she becomes an Oxford University Graduate. 😉

However yes, we are all created because we are all loved. ❤️

We are supposed to be destined for sonship… but some will reject it.
In other words, if anyone would like to “go off to college,” God is more than ready and able to make it happen for us. Our Maker is RICH!!! :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:

jason
 
Couldn’t make it today.

Perhaps tomorrow or Monday. 🙂

jason

p.s. I really think others will like it.
 
“The chicken or the egg… which came first?”

(Both the chicken and the egg are created. What are their origins?)

Honestly, I already “summed” in my very first post.

But it’s okay, this is educational…

Now all this is, is just one more aspect of my essential argument. I believe I could keep going for as long as others post arguments against mine. So it goes: we’ll see what happens. 🙂 I’m honestly having fun.

Now:

Everyone (and I do mean everyone), let’s please come to an agreement: there exists, for each of us, an image of God.

Okay…

(Mormonism says we must each come to fill this image of God; that is, “become a god.” lol and so does Catholicism!)

It matters not how many times this image has been passed down through ages and ages–it doesn’t even matter if somehow this image eternally continues “progressively” backwards; because (the) image is still only (an) image, at best it is a fitting image.

Where did this image come from?

continuing…

A good rule for our wonderful, reasoning human minds:

**God = cause, **
god = affect.

…clear enough?

Suppose you personally, now and forever more, know all there is (for you) to know: you have children, you know them; they have children, you know them; and you know everything that happens (from and to your descendants–not to mention your own self). 1

Well?

Let’s even go so far as to say, you are now and forever more in control of all which transpires in the future.
Now, nothing happens unless you make it so: you’re then God?

CONTINUED------->
 
to continue further…

This is a perfect example of where “views” mesh: I say no, you aren’t then God. Rather, in the above scenario, you are one of the gods. Not to be confused with God.

Now if we say, “well this God of Monotheists once had a creator, too.”

Again, we differ: no, “this God” didn’t have a creator, too.
This God that I speak of, is the Original God, having not before “Itself.”

This “Original God,” (also known as the First Cause) is the reason we secondary gods have this whole notion of “becoming God.” Without the Original God, the eternal line of finite god creation, would never have appeared. (But again: chaos theory–stupidly–declares that we weren’t created; but instead “just appeared” or, “just are affected.”)

Imagine this: a forever line of dominoes.

These dominoes are locked into a perpetual cycle of falling on one another in (the forward) direction. We’ll consider this “falling on one another” to mean: gods are always creating gods.

Yes, very good: a cycle of “love.” It just keeps going. And going. And going. Home | Boarders Guide

This is a line of cause & affect.


In order for a god to exist, its creation is first necessary. Thus, cause comes before affect. (The “God” (cause) creates the baby god (affect))

Now. Now, before there was ever a created god (i.e. affect), what was there? Before there was ever an affect, what was there?

Friends, I speak truth–listen to me: affect cannot precede cause; otherwise there would be no affect (as affect is the result of cause).

Thus without THE CAUSE, there is no further creation of gods (affect).

So then, what precedes the creation of a god (i.e. affect)?

Hmm… “Jason, according to the Great Smith, the affect of another affect does.”

Affect is what we get when there is a CAUSE. (Please don’t forget now: according to Mormonism being “GOD” is the affect of being created (i.e. affected).

There we have it then! According to Mormonism, *affect *precedes affect. To Mormonism, there is no CAUSE of anything/one. Only the affect of endlessly falling (i.e. affected) dominoes. No Cause of that, at all… it just falls. it just falls. it just falls. it just falls. it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls.it just falls. it just falls. it just falls… (ad infinitum)

't has always been falling, and it always will be (affected). Never caused!

CONTINUED------>
 
continuing…

I can’t help but laugh a little as I say this: *yea again I tell ye: ye that shall know *Mormonism *as thine own, ought see it to be knowing CHAOS AS THINE OWN! *

Again, Mormonism is either solipsism (if no cause brought you forth), or **chaos **(if no reasonable cause brought you forth).

hmm… interestingly enough, doesn’t it seem like solipsism and chaos have much in common? Mormonism too. What on Earth is missing in all these? What have we gone and rejected here?

I quote the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church: (CCC) 396, God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

END

1 you won’t know all there is to know, because truth be told there is knowing which precedes your own. So really, you’re saying no one does/can know the Universe. “Oh they can know their own Universe, but no…” well, if other (unknowable) Universes exist too, there ya go: you’ll still never know them *all; *hence the Universe is not knowable to a god: and what one doesn’t know, one cannot control (i.e. bring into ORDER); so then, who/what is really in control here? I’m not even going to say it this time! You already know! …it starts with a “C”. 😉

p.s. I have much more I’d love to say! But I shall not! 😦

Simply, I think I’ve taken care of Moronism enough. I will reserve my further insight on this matter for when some other person either:
  1. argues against any of the concepts I’ve shown in this thread;
or 2. asks.

If anyone has difficulty with philosophical/spiritual etc implications come across upon further contemplation of this whole matter, I will be more than happy to help you out! 🙂 Just ask! I’ll be around!

(iow if you need help untangling the mess, I’ll help out…)

jason
 
Now just watch: somebody’s gonna break out the reincarnation argument…

but that’s okay!
watch and see what happens. 🙂
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Jason, I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Do you read Chesterton? 👍
Paul
By the way thank you so much Paul! That means a lot to me. Honestly I do try very hard, because I know the World is soooo messed up today. Truth, and people who think hard about the truth is, I feel, very much needed. http://www.mambers.com/images/smilies/sm/trust_me.gif http://www.mambers.com/images/smilies/jason/rifle.gif

(Above all however, we “truth thinkers” are sustained by the supportive others in our lives who love us: without you guys we’d be nothing, and nowhere. It wouldn’t mean a thing without you all!)

Honestly though, it is all God’s blessings: I am only handing them on to others in good charity. (I must! For the bulk of these blessings do not belong to me; and their magnitude would honestly kill me if I tried keeping them to myself!) :o

But by the way Paul, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts as well. If I might humbly say, I think our posts compliment one another quite well.

**GOD BLESS YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE! **(you too “deltaguy”)

–Jason

p.s. and as I mentioned above, no I do not currently read Chesterton; but indeed, I do intend to.
 
This thread’s discussion of first cause reminds me of something I witnessed during my one semester at BYU in 1975-1976 (I couldn’t stand it). There were several movements and discussion groups on campus that the LDS Church considered apostate. One was a group that met to discuss The Journal of Discourses with an emphasis in Brigham Young’s “Adam-God Theory” - a fairly common avenue of inquiry within Mormonism. The LDS Church sent apostle Boyd K. Packer, whose job was to snuff out dissidents and apostates, to the campus. He questioned some of his many informants, tracked down the participants and threatened to expel them if they didn’t disband. They just went deeper underground. I know because I later married one of them.

Another far more interesting group was investigating what they called the “First Father” question. One of my room-mates was in this group. They reasoned that if each god had a father-god going backwards in time, then there must have been a god who was the very first god. They discussed whether or not they should be worshipping this “First Father” who was really the originator of the plan of salvation. My room-mate invited me to join the group and explained its premise. I declined the invitation, stating that if I wanted to worship the first god I would have stayed Catholic. That really took him a-back.
It’s a good thing I didn’t join, because a few weeks later Elder Packer came back and had every one of them expelled for apostacy.
Paul
 
I know this comes as way too late for anyone to notice, but here goes:

If you were to take the Mormon god and the god above him and the god above him and the god above him on to infinity upwards and then take all the future gods our Earth god would cultivate into infinity and wrapped them all up into one, they would still be as small to our God as a grain of sand is to us. Why? Because infinity minus any amount no matter how large is still infinity. The Mormon gods are all finite. They all have birthdays. This makes them infinitely smaller than the Judeo-Christian God. There is no change in size, strength, intelligence or love that they can preform that will ever bring them on par with our God BECAUSE THE GAP IS INFINITELY LARGE. To be an infinity, you cannot start with a finite amount, you can only be an infinity (or, more accurately, you can only have always been being an infinity).

I inflict on you a passage from Wisdom:

“Before the LORD the whole universe is as a grain from a balance or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.” (11:22)

You kids and your rollerblades and go-gurt!
:dancing:
 
I am a late-comer to this thread, but after having read 90% of the posts I conclude that Love-Bias intended to show some aquaintance with what she thought was an interesting topic.

PaulDupre and StubbleSpeak offered the only informative posts in my opinion. Actually it seems that Love-Bias just wanted some “correspondance”. Solipsism is not found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, therefore, I find it irrevalent in this context.(see original post).

May I suggest that spending some time reading St. Thomas Aquinas would be more productive. He is practical…and Catholic.
 
40.png
Exporter:
I am a late-comer to this thread, but after having read 90% of the posts I conclude that Love-Bias intended to show some aquaintance with what she thought was an interesting topic.

PaulDupre and StubbleSpeak offered the only informative posts in my opinion. Actually it seems that Love-Bias just wanted some “correspondance”. Solipsism is not found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, therefore, I find it irrevalent in this context.(see original post).

May I suggest that spending some time reading St. Thomas Aquinas would be more productive. He is practical…and Catholic.
“Exporter” I don’t think you read any of this thread. Firstly, Jason is not a “she” name. My goodness! Was that on purpose? Are you a bent out Mormon, trying to discretely slap me in the face?

Secondly, I altogether* disproved ***Mormonism. Okay? No??? Then tell me good sir, why I haven’t I? In my humble opinion, you are making a completely ignorant fool of yourself here. You can’t simply act as though you know something about “this and that,” and expect to be revered simply for such–you must legitimately make your case. I’m sorry friend, but your words are the equivalent of a ten year olds, who has just gotten into his daddy’s library collection for the first time ever. Please try actually reading arguments, before commenting. When you comment, please respond with an actual response: your words were utterly cheap, I’m sorry to say…

“solipsism isn’t found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, therefore, I find it irrelevent in this context…” ??? WHAT? What are you talking about man?

Is Mormonism found in the Catholic Encyclopedia? Yes? Well then, possibly so too is the concept of solipsism. (Prove me wrong, please)

Is the purpose of this discussion site then, to speak of semantics? Why can’t we speak on the *real world, *and how it relates to Catholicism? I for one don’t believe Roman Catholics are to be cultists. “Oh, it isn’t in the books from the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society, therefore it’s irrelevant.” **RIGHT? **

Ya know, if solipsism were in the “Catholic Dictionary,” then so what? Would it really make a difference?

Existentialism, too, is not defined in the “Catholic Encyclopedia,” and yet here a Pope finds it relevant enough to speak of. [64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ej5I2iwMAuAJ:www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm+newadvent.org+existentialism&hl=en](http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...pi12hg.htm+newadvent.org+existentialism&hl=en)

“Exporter” have you better answers for procedure, than a Pope? You want us to listen to your teachings and opinions when they explicitly contradict that of a Pope’s? My goodness! Speak not!

As well, according to you, should we then be limited to talking about the ideas found only in the “Catholic Encyclopedia?”
Do you honestly think God plunked the “Catholic Encyclopedia” down into our laps and said, “Here ya go. Study this: it has all the answers!” (Your idea sounds rather Protestant to me)

Instead, did the “Catholic Encyclopedia” not progress and grow over time? Do you honestly believe that the “Catholic Encyclopedia” will never have the word solipsism in it? Who would you be to assert such a thing?

“Exporter” the fact that you don’t understand my posts doesn’t automatically give you the right to degrade them.

Thank you anyway. Better luck next time. I’d love to see a real post from you. Even your last post against my disproving of existentialism didn’t have anything of actual substance to it. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15774&highlight=existentialism post number 12.

jason
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top